PDA

View Full Version : MiG-15 vs F-86



XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:22 AM
sorry, I coudn't edit the message

Message Edited on 06/27/0302:42AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:22 AM
sorry, I coudn't edit the message

Message Edited on 06/27/0302:42AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:41 AM
Since we'll have in FB planes that served most their operational life long after ww2, I think that this discussion is inevitable. We can have a little warm-up:


SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Direct comparison for turning performance SkyChimp?
-- Never heard of that. Would you mind posting the
-- report of that particular test?
-
- Would I mind posting? You mean, would I mind
- providing you with information because you are too
- lazy to look for it yourself?
-
- What do you think happendd to that MiG-15bis that
- was flown to the south in 1953?
-
- From it, the USAF determined the F-86 could outturn
- the MiG-15 except at high altitude, the F-86 could
- roll better at all speeds and all alttiudes (up to
- 240 degrees per second), it was faster up to about
- 24,000 feet, and it was a much more refined plane.


Where's the quote from that report? which are the turn rates for both planes? You want me to believe you just like that?


- They also discovered the MiG-15 could not go
- supersonic even in a vertical dive from 50,000 feet,
- yet the F-86 could break mach 1 in a shallow dive.

Of course that's not true. The soviets had the first supersonic dive handling tests done on MiG-15. But it wasn't the first soviet fighter that broke the Mach 1 barrier in dive, Lavochkin La-176 was (in fact La-176 sustained supersonic speed in level flight in 1948).



- Yeager, who participated in the evaluations stated
- "the MiG-15 is a quirky plane that will kill its
- pilot given the chance."


That's his opinion, most pilots didn't share it. MiG-15 in trainer variant was produced in huge numbers and had a very long service life. Except for the two seat cockpit there were no other aerodynamic differences with the fighter variant. And yes it was praised for its easy handling.



-- He says you COULD TRY not that F-86 has better turn
-- characteristic. Early jets had the best sustained
-- turn rate at about 5G (ww2 piston planes had it at
-- 3G). That's very demanding on the pilot. So yes for
-- an ace (like Boots Blesse) turning with MiGs might
-- be the best solution, since he could surely stand
-- the Gs. But that's in no way a proof that F-86 could
-- outturn a MiG if driven by equally qualified pilots.
-
- You don't understand that the turn test based on
- wing loading and power to weight only gives an idea
- under ideal conditions. How does your theory work
- when the MiG-15 snap rolls, violently, when it
- attemtps sustained high-g turns?
-
- You seem to think that wing loading and PTW and the
- only determinans when deciding which plane could
- turn better, and by doing so you utterly fail to
- take into account the character of a plane and how
- it reacts under such conditions. For the MiG-15, it
- snap rolled and spun very easily, not so the F-86.
- The F-86 could much more easily endure sustained
- high-g turns that the MiG-15 pilot not dare try.

Sustained turns could be performed very nicely inside the flight envelope. Where from did you get this idiocy that MiG-15 could not perform sustained turns?? Never heard such crap before.



-- Turning inside (better turn radius) doesn't mean
-- outturning (better turn rate). But you make this
-- confusion every time. Il-2 and most early medium
-- bombers could turn inside late war fighters. Does
-- that mean that early war bombers could outturn late
-- war fighters? Of course not.
-
- I know you seem to think you know it all, but USAAF
- pilots and the North Korean defector that delivered
- the MiG-15bis to US forces say you are worng. I
- think I'lll go with they that know what they are
- talking about.

What credibility have the opinions of a defector?



-- Turn radius performance can be easily compared by
-- looking at stall speeds - better stall speed in
-- clean config results in better turn radius. IIRC
-- stall speed for MiG-15 loaded in clean config is
-- around 145mph. I don't have right now a good stall
-- speed number for P-80, it can be better but not by a
-- significant margin. So yes there is a possibility
-- for F-80 to turn inside MiG-15, but since MiG-15 had
-- both power and wing loading better than F-80, it
-- surely outperforms F-80 in sustained turns (i.e.
-- outturns
-
- In sustained turns the MiG-15 was unstable and
- stalled violently usually ending up in a spin that
- was very difficult to recover from.

In sustained turns Skychimp?? First thing you should know is that swept aircraft could safely perform maneuvers at double AoA than their straight wing counterparts (with the same aspect ratio). There is a big margin for error on swept wing fighters. The only problem was the handling near stall (and at small speeds) , which was indeed poor. In all fairness the handling of F-86 was better, wing slats and boosted controls gave it an advantage on margins of the envelope, at very slow or high speeds. But proper tactics could easily neutralize this: you should't go slow anyway in a fight and if you're caught at high speed just point the nose up and make a gentle spiral climb until you can maneuver better.


P.S. I have good news for you Skychimp. Now that the patch is clearly coming I ordered FB. I hope that you still have a drop of pride and dignity to honour your challenge you made once to me.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 09:14 AM
Here's a pretty good resume.

Cheers,


"Which was the better fighter, the Sabre or the MiG? As in most questions of this type, the answer is--it depends!

Throughout the Korean war, American intelligence on the capabilities of the MiG-15 was limited largely to Sabre pilots' fleeting impressions of the Russian-built aircraft when they encountered it in combat. These impressions were reinforced by a description of a MiG-15 flown to Denmark in March of 1953 by a Polish defector, and also by the examination of a wrecked MiG salvaged from 17 feet of water off the North Korean coast in July of 1951.

On September 21, 1953, Lt. No ***-Suk of the Korean People's Armed Forces Air Corps defected to the South along with his MiG-15bis. This presented the USAF with its first flyable example of its MiG-15 opponent, and gave US intelligence the first chance to compare its initial impressions with actual flight test data. The MiG was dismantled and flown to Okinawa aboard a C-124 Globemaster. There, it was reassembled and flown by a crew of experienced test pilots including Maj. Gen. Albert B. Boyd, Major Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, and Capt H. E. Collins. The MiG was painted with USAF markings, and was assigned the fictitious serial number "616", because Capt. Collins had used this same number on a plane he had once flown. The actual MiG serial number was 2015357. This aircraft was later flown to Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Lt. No's MiG-15bis is currently on display at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base Museum, painted in its original North Korean markings.

For comparison purposes, the data of the flight test are summarized in the following table. Included for comparison purposes are data for the F-86A, the F-86E, the F-86F-10, and the "6-3" wing F-86F-30.



MiG-15bis F-86A-5 F-86E-10 F-86F-10 F-86F-30 (6-3)
Wingspan (ft) 33.08 37.12 37.12 37.12 37.12
Wing Area (sq ft) 255 287.9 287.9 287.9 302.26
Length (ft) 36.27 37.54 37.54 37.54 37.54
Height (ft) 11.15 14.74 14.74 14.74 14.74
Wingsweep (deg) 42 35 35 35 35
Engine Klimov VK-1 J47-GE-13 J47-GE-13 J47-GE-27 J47-GE-27
Thrust (lb.s.t) 5950 5200 5200 5910 5910
Initial Climb Rate (ft/min) 10,100 7470 7250 9300 9300
Time to 20,000 ft (min) 2.5 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.9
Time to 30,000 ft (min) 4.9 8.0 9.2 8.3 8.3
Time to 40,000 ft (min) 5.5 18.0 19.3 16.0 16.0
Service Ceiling (ft) 51,500 48,000 47,200 48,000 48,000
Max Speed at Sea Level (mph) (ft) 668 679 679 688 695
Max Speed at 20,000 ft (mph) (ft) 635 635 642 645 655
Max Speed at 30,000 ft (mph) (ft) 619 613 617 622 628
Max Speed at 35,000 ft (mph) (ft) 610 601 601 608 611
Max Speed at 40,000 ft (mph) (ft) 600 595 596 603 606
Max Speed at 47,500 ft (mph) (ft) 575
Ferry Range with external tanks (mi) 1228 1052 1022 1317 1615
Takeoff Run Over 50-ft obstacle (ft) 2500 3660 3870 3925 4720
Empty Weight (lbs) 8633 10,093 10,681 10,840 10,890
Combat Weight (lbs) 11,070 13,791 14,255 14,857 14,981
Armament 1x37mm, 2x23mm 6x0.50in 6x0.50in 6x0.50in 6x0.50in
Rate of Fire (rpm) 450 (37mm), 650 (23mm) 1100x6 1100x6 1100x6 1100x6
Ammunition Capacity (rounds) 40 (37mm), 160 (23mm) 300x6 300x6 300x6 300x6

The test flights confirmed the initial impressions of combat pilots in Korea. The MiG-15 was faster than the F-86A and F-86E at altitudes above 30,000 feet, but slower at lower altitudes. Early F-86Fs were superior in speed to the MiG only up to 35,000 feet, whereas the "6-3" F-86Fs were faster than their MiG opponents all the way up to the Sabre's service ceiling.

One of the primary advantages of the MiG over the Sabre was its 4000-foot advantage in service ceiling. It would often happen that F-86s would enter MiG Alley at 40,000 feet, only to find MiGs circling 10,000 feet above them. There was nothing that the Sabre pilots could do unless the MiGs decided to come down and do battle. The high-flying MiGs could pick the time and place of battle, and their higher speed at high altitudes enabled them to break off combat at will when things got too tight. Many a MiG escaped destruction by being able to flee across the Yalu where the Sabres were forbidden to pursue.

The Sabre was much heavier than the MiG and had a superior diving speed. Both the MiG and the F-86 could go supersonic in a dive, but the Sabre was much more stable than the MiG in the transonic speed regime. One way for a Sabre to shake a MiG sitting on its tail was for the F-86 pilot to open his throttle all the way up and go over into a dive, pulling its pursuer down to lower altitudes where the F-86 had a performance advantage. Above Mach 0.86, the MiG-15 suffered from severe directional snaking, which made the aircraft a poor gun platform at these high speeds. Buffeting in the MiG began at Mach 0.91, and a nose-up tendency initiated at Mach 0.93. The high-speed stability problems of the MiG-15 were so severe that it was not all that uncommon for a MiG to go into the transonic regime during an air battle, only to lose its entire vertical tail assembly during violent combat maneuvering. The rate of roll of the MiG was too slow, and lateral-directional stability was poor at high altitudes and speeds.

One of the most serious weaknesses of the MiG-15 was its tendency to go into uncontrollable spins, especially in the hands of inexperienced pilots. Many Sabre victories in Korea were scored without the F-86 pilots ever having to fire their guns--they merely forced their MiG opponents into spins from which their pilots could not recover. An experienced MiG pilot could get himself out of a spin, but the aircraft was somewhat unstable and lacked good stall warning properties.

The turning radius of the MiG was good, somewhat better than that of the F-86A, E and early F. However, this advantage was largely eliminated by the advent of the "6-3" wing of the later F-86F. The good turning radius of the MiG was compromised by poor stalling characteristics. These bad stalling characteristics could get a green MiG pilot into serious trouble during the stress of a dogfight, causing his fighter to suddenly stall, go into an uncontrollable spin, and fall out of the sky.

In contrast, the spinning characteristics of the Sabre were excellent, and gave most pilots no trouble at all. If the F-86 was forced into a spin, recovery was usually effected by simply neutralizing the controls.

The MiG-15 armament of one 37-mm N-37 cannon and two 23-mm NR-23 guns was designed for attacking bombers, and was not really intended for use against fighters. Forty rounds of 37-mm ammunition and 160 rounds of 23-mm ammunition were carried, a rather low ammunition capacity. The 37-mm gun fired at a rate of 450 rpm, whereas the 23-mm guns each fired at a rate of 650 rpm. The MiG's armament had a good punch, but the rate of fire was too slow to make it effective against nimble, rapidly-maneuvering fighters. In contrast, the F-86's armament of six 0.50-in machine guns had a rapid firing rate and the aircraft carried an ample supply of ammunition. However, the machine guns of the Sabre lacked the stopping power of the MiG's cannon. It was not uncommon for a Sabre pilot to empty all 1600 rounds of his ammunition at a MiG, only to see it escape unscathed.

The gunsight of the MiG-15 was of the simple gyro type, similar to that of the early F-86A. It lacked any radar ranging capability. The radar ranging gunsight of the later Sabres made the F-86 a much more accurate gun platform than the MiG, but this accuracy was sometimes wasted because of the low weight of fire from the machine guns.

The MiG was much lighter than the Sabre, weighing only 11,070 pounds loaded. The take off run to clear a 50-foot obstacle was only 2500 feet, as compared with 3660 feet for the F-86A.

Internal fuel capacity of the MiG was 372 US gallons, compared with 435 gallons for the Sabre. This gave the MiG a range of 480 miles, which could be increased to 675 miles with drop tanks.

During the Korean War, 792 MiG-15s were destroyed by F-86 pilots, with 118 probables being claimed. 78 Sabres were definitely lost in air-to-air combat against the MiGs, with a further 13 Sabres being listed as missing in action. This is about a ten-to-one superiority. From this result, one might naturally conclude that the F-86 was the superior fighter. However, a factor which must also be considered is the relative level of experience and competence of the opposing pilots. The US Sabre pilots were all highly trained and competent airmen, many of whom had extensive World War 2 combat experience. With the exception of some Russian World War 2 veterans who flew MiG fighters in Korea, the MiG pilots were often sent into combat with only minimal flying experience. MiG pilots often exercised poor combat discipline. During the course of battle, MiG pilots would often break off into confusion and panic, firing wildly, and leaving their wingmen unprotected. Often, a MiG pilot in trouble would eject from his plane before anyone actually shot at him. Many MiG pilots were so inexperienced that in the heat of battle they would end up getting themselves into uncontrollable spins and crashing. At times, MiG pilots would fire their cannon in an attempt to lighten their loads, without really aiming at anything. Most of the MiG pilots were extremely wary of combat, and usually did not attempt to fight unless they saw an advantage opening up. In contrast, the Sabre pilots were aggressive and eager for combat, and wanted nothing more than for the MiGs to come over the Yalu so that they could add to their scores.

So, which plane would you rather be sitting in, the MiG-15 or the F-86? Perhaps Chuck Yeager said it best--"It isn't the plane that is important in combat, it's the man sitting in it."

Sources:



F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.


The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.


The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.


MiG--A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller, Aerofax, 1991.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:26 AM
During the Korean War, 792 MiG-15s were destroyed by F-86 pilots, with 118 probables being claimed. 78 Sabres were definitely lost in air-to-air combat against the MiGs, with a further 13 Sabres being listed as missing in action. This is about a ten-to-one superiority. From this result, one might naturally conclude that the F-86 was the superior fighter. However, a factor which must also be considered is the relative level of experience and competence of the opposing pilots. The US Sabre pilots were all highly trained and competent airmen, many of whom had extensive World War 2 combat experience. With the exception of some Russian World War 2 veterans who flew MiG fighters in Korea, the MiG pilots were often sent into combat with only minimal flying experience.

-------------------

These lost/kill ratio is based on old figures that had been revised through the last few years. I don't have the correct ratio in my mind now, but the newest researchs on that claim 1.8-2.4:1 for the F-86 instead of the 10:1 or 12.5:1 ratio that were published 40 years ago./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also the the all-around USAAF-NKAF fighter kill/loss ratio was corrected to a far lower level.

edit: will post more excact stuff that evenning when I get access to my lib.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura



Message Edited on 06/27/0311:28AM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:55 AM
Ok for the kill ratio, that's old news, but the description of the MiG-15 versus Sabre flight characteristics looks still accurate, according to the most usual sources (perhaps some super-top-secret-until-now docs will come to the light telling everything was said until now is wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:58 AM
- perhaps some super-top-secret-until-now docs will come to
- the light telling everything was said until now is wrong.

At that point of the diccusion I know someone who says:"CHDT, you IS wrong!" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ROTFLMAO

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:03 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Another good resume here:


Those two weeks of combat established some characteristics of the aerial combat which last for the remaining of the war, characteristics dictated by the advantages and disadvantages of both types of aircraft. The MiG-15bis had a higher ceiling with 15.000m than the F-86 with 12.000m. The MiG-15 pilots learned to initiate combat with altitude advantage, diving and performing their attack runs from the sun. Additionally, the MiG-15bis had an outstanding climbing capacity enabling them to retreat to a safe altitude after performing the initial bounce This ability allowed the MiG-15 tacticians to develop maneuvers which lured the Sabres into a climb, bleeding airspeed in the attempt to catch the MiG while becoming an easy target for a second MiG element. Also the MiG-15bis could easily out-turn the F-86 above 10.000 m and turned as well as the Sabre in the region between 8.000-10.000m.
At medium or lower altitudes below 8.000m the F-86 Sabre was more agile than the MiG, and it could out-turn the Soviet-built fighter. Such capability increased proportionally with the decrease of the altitude. Of course this inferior turning cycle was not to such an extent so it could prevent a well-piloted MiG-15bis still could give a good fight against the Sabre even at such altitudes.
The design of the vertical stabilizers gave to F-86 Sabre a better axial stability, which apart from making it a much more stable fire platform it also enabled a better diving capacity. As the Sabre could maintain Mach 0.97 in a steep dive and still be under control a MiG doing so would enter in an uncontrolled spin and rip its wings off. At least that was told to the combat pilots. The reality was a bit different as test pilot Stepan Mikoyan explains:
"The MiG-15 fighter had sweptback wings but the sweep was only thirty-five degrees and the wings were relatively thick, therefore its speed limit was M 0.92 (for an aircraft with a non-sweptback wing M 0.8 was the maximum). In the Korean War the pilots who were trying to escape or were chasing him in a dive at full-throttle sometimes exceeded the never-exceed speed. Whenever that happened they were supposed to throttle down and deploy the speed brakes, but in combat nobody really did that. So we, the test pilots of the fighter section, were instructed to test the MiG-15 in steep dives to assess the risk of that maneuver and to devise some practical recommendations for combat pilots. I was among those engaged in those tests. Thanks to the MiG-15's sweptback wings, its longitudinal control was not affected by high speed diving, whereas the lateral control effectiveness was decreased and the aircraft would roll to the left due to the engine rotation moment. It took us several flights to realize it, but once we did, we developed a certain pattern of diving in which a steep dive was entered with the aircraft already banking to the right. It turned out that even in a vertical dive at full power the MiG-15 was unable to reach M 1.0-with its aerodynamic layout the air drag was simply far too great. Therefore we could report that there was no longer the danger of exceeding the limit speed."

In fact Central Fighter Establishment documents pertaining to the Sabre versus the MiG comparison indicated that the Sabre could in fact dive faster but was less stable in this regime. This was especially true for the A model of the Sabre. Furthermore Indian fighter pilot Flt. Lt. Peter Michael Brown who flew the Sabres at Nellis AFB noted that the handling of the Sabre above M 0.95 was inferior to the Hawker Hunter, the French Mystere and the Folland Gnat. In so what the diving performance is concerned the fact was that while the Sabre could attain a higher top speed, the control authority was far inferior in the near supersonic regimes.
The MiG-15 had a much more powerful weaponry; its single Nuddelmann-Richter and two Nuddelmann-Semenov cannons of 37 and 23 mm could brake a Sabre, or any other type of U.N. aircraft, into pieces with a few rounds. Experience showed one or two direct hits of a 37 mm shell or 10-15 hits of 23 mm shells usually sealed the fate of the Sabre in most cases. On the opposite side of the fence, the Sabre pilots sometimes needed the full load of the Sabre's six Browning machineguns of 12.7mm (0.50 inch) to shot down a single MiG-15bis like Hinton experienced when he shot down Yefromenko on December 17.
As no rose is without a thorn the F-86 Sabre had a much better gunsight, coupled with a small ranging radar mounted on the top of the intake lip which calculated the range to target. This contraption enabled U.S. pilots a greater degree of accuracy for less effort when firing at a MiG. But the combination was not welcomed with the pilots. Most still preferred to use the sight with manual aiming, while some Sabres were still equipped with the older Mk.18 sight without automatic ranging. The experience gained with these early A1-CM ranging gunsight enabled the development of the A-4 gunsight which harvested much praise including Pakistani Air Force pilots who used them in combat with the Indian Air Force. In addition to the better but complex gunsight the trajectory of the 0.5 inch (12.7mm) bullets was almost a straight line, while the trajectory of the 37 and 23 mm shells curved earthwards after a few hundred meters because the weight of the rounds. That was why only the best Soviet shooters could score hits at long range while the vas majority preferred to close to 200m of their targets.
One area that the Sabre excelled was the cockpit visibility, where the Sabre pilots enjoyed almost limitless visibility trough the teardrop shaped canopy. The MiG-15 pilots were limited by the canopy framing and the gunsight, but more importantly their vision was hampered by the lower sitting position. In fact the Sabre was nicknamed the humpback by the Soviet pilots, since the pilot sat only hip deep in the fuselage.
The sight with the radio-range finder of the Sabre gave birth to the first Soviet Radar Warning Receiver. Test engineer Vadim Matskevich conceived a contraption that reacted to the Sabre's ranging radar. Every time such a radar would be looking at the MiG the pilot would hear a low-pitch 'howling' in the earphones. As the distance from the emitter grew the noise became high in pitch and low in volume. Even so it remained perfectly distinct within the distance of seven to eight kilometers. Probably the most important reason for the introduction of this improvement on the Korean MiGs was the fact it was very simple to install partly utilizing the already built-in, but never really used equipment for rocket-assisted take-offs.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:06 PM
That's also interesting:


"Apart from the tactical aspects of the Sabre versus MiG-15 combat many other indications were already present in the initial skirmishes of what was yet to come.
The Soviets inflated their score with a high percentage of over claiming. The actual kills differed from claims by as much as 50-65%. In many cases the over claims were made in good faith, but it must be said that the Soviet contingent command encouraged good results, which could be reported back to the SSSR. Of course the U.N. was also prone to over claming, albeit in this early stages of the struggle against the MiGs, the overclaim ratio of the Sabre and F-80 pilots was a reasonable 20%, but this one raised to 40-60%, especially in the post 1952 period where a confirmed kill was awarded even with inconclusive evidence that cried out for a damaged or a probable classification.
During the same time it had become standard practice if a Sabre that was shot up in combat with the MiGs successfully disengaged and then crashed outside the MiG Alley or in the vicinity of the home base, these losses would be considered as accidents and not classified as losses to enemy fighters as they should had been."


Link here:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_98.shtml#top


Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:22 PM
F-86 was infinitively superior to the MiG-15, and it not even remotely connected to the Me 262 or Ta-183. As a matter of fact, it`s based on a design plane from the Wright bothers, which was found in their heritage.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:34 PM
"F-86 was infinitively superior to the MiG-15"


I don't think so.

A well-flown Sabre could cause great problems to a MiG-15.
A well-flown MiG-15 could cause great problems to a Sabre.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:41 PM
Das war ironisch gemeint, glaube ich

The ACIG article is very good, but sadly I am not sure wether we will ever see a second part.
Maybe I should ask Tom, I once got along quite well with him.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:46 PM
Did Issy just say something nice about a US aircraft?

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:58 PM
Ich glaube es auch /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 02:13 PM
Helos wrote : "Did Issy just say something nice about a US aircraft?"

His veil slipped when he involuntarily hit the winkie button.



Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 03:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- F-86 was infinitively superior to the MiG-15

You must remember that the Mig -15 was not designed as a air superiority fighter, but as a bomber interceptor. The heavy armament 2x23mm and 1x37mm cannons is not suited for dogfighting. The Reds did rather well 1-3 kill ration vs the sabre. Most of our pilots were seasoned WW 2 veterans. Except for the russians in 1951, the bulk of mig drivers were chinese and north koreans, not too impressive.

http://frenchaces.free.fr/avions/regia/g50.jpg

Incocca!
Tende!
Scagua!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:32 PM
Good quotes CHDT, most of the info seems reasonable.
Now that we agree, we can draw some conclusions:

MiG-15 outperforms F-86 in every flight characteristic except max speed at low altitudes.

F-86 has better handling at very low and high speeds. MiG-15 is easier to put in a spin but spin recovery is easy on both (russian pilots said that neutralizing controls was enough to pull out of a spin).

Which has better armament is an open question. Surely MiG-15 has better bomber intercepting armament, but in fighter vs fighter is hard to decide. 23mm cannons had good balistics and is my favorite armament, but 6x.50 concentrated in nose seems a good option too. MGs might prove insufficient considering that shot oportunities are very short in jet to jet engagements.

Late models Sabre had a better gunsight with range radar (feeded the gunsight with distance to target, you didn't have to adjust it constantly like you had to with K-13). We should say that both MiG-15 and F-86 had variants with search radar capability addded to ranging but none of them saw service in Korean War.

In short MiG-15 had better performance but F-86 had better equipment and better handling at certain speeds.

ZG77_Nagual
06-27-2003, 05:58 PM
All this reminds me of that most excellent flight simm - Mig Alley.
In that simm the Mig15 is the better plane - particularly the Bis

PS - Issy was being sarcastic

By the way - being thoroughly unnappreciated by the usaaf makes the p63 practically russian.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 06/27/0301:00PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:03 PM
Whichever had the British Nene engine was the better jet fighter. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Actually, both were poor aircraft. La~15 with lil British Derwent was best, and was born long before Hunter.


-- By the way - being thoroughly unnappreciated by the
-- usaaf makes the p63 practically russian.

true, true,,,,true /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:33 AM
The MiG suffered from several faults in production quality, notably the quality of wing construction. It was thought that some pilots would simply refuse to push their MiG-15 to it's limits for fear of a structural failure.

The F-86 was a fine general purpose aircraft, influenced by US fighter doctrine that called for interception of Soviet bombers as well as air-to air fighting with other fighters, The MiG was a specialist aircraft fighting on it's own terms and on that basis, the MiG was the superior aircraft vs. the F-86. It is very noteworthy that US tactics and training was such that it could bridge the gap between the two aircraft.



PS

Isengrim was joking..."design from the Wright Bros"???

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:32 AM
With the matter of kill claims you have to remember that just about every American jet downed was listed as an F-86 when in reality most of the American fighters lost to Migs were F-84 ground attack planes.

In strict dogfights the Migs always attacked from a higher altitude and at greater speed with greater numbers, yet they consistently lost more planes.

This period established the USAF as the premier airforce of the world, a position it holds to this day though it is inevitable that people on this board will dispute this regardless of its place as fact.

One must remember that most of the Migs shot down were not flown by Russians but rather by poorly trained Chinese and North Korean pilots.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:56 AM
If you read the books and study the planes you will find out that the f-86 is a ta-183 and a mig-15 is a me-p1101.If you think the reference books are wrong can't help you with that.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:08 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

I see you waited until I was offline to post this tidbit.


- Where's the quote from that report? which are the
- turn rates for both planes? You want me to believe
- you just like that?

A little research, Huck. Just a little on your part.



- Of course that's not true. The soviets had the first
- supersonic dive handling tests done on MiG-15. But
- it wasn't the first soviet fighter that broke the
- Mach 1 barrier in dive, Lavochkin La-176 was (in
- fact La-176 sustained supersonic speed in level
- flight in 1948).

You are completely wrong. The MiG-15 was incapable of supersonic flight. US tests proved it. The centrifugal engine was the drawback in this regard.



- That's his opinion, most pilots didn't share it.
- MiG-15 in trainer variant was produced in huge
- numbers and had a very long service life. Except for
- the two seat cockpit there were no other aerodynamic
- differences with the fighter variant. And yes it was
- praised for its easy handling.

A qualified opinion. He tested in on behalf of the US. Are you saying that US test pilots have no right to opinion or credibility in this regard? Absurd.



- Sustained turns could be performed very nicely
- inside the flight envelope. Where from did you get
- this idiocy that MiG-15 could not perform sustained
- turns?? Never heard such crap before.

You've never heard it because you won't research a topic before you make a fool of yourself on it. And even if you had, your zealous bias wouldn't allow you to admit it.

Again, a little research may enlighten you. But I won't get my hopes up that you will even attempt it. You probably won't even read CHDT's post which states:
"The good turning radius of the MiG was compromised by poor stalling characteristics." Exactly what I said, yet you said it's "crap." And yet again, experts say you are wrong.



- What credibility have the opinions of a defector?

Opinions? That's quite an idiotic statement, even from you. No ***-Sok was a North Korean fighter pilot. His is more than opinion, it's the qualified statement of a man who flew the plane in combat.

Should I disregard his opinion for yours? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



- In sustained turns Skychimp?? First thing you should
- know is that swept aircraft could safely perform
- maneuvers at double AoA than their straight wing
- counterparts (with the same aspect ratio). There is
- a big margin for error on swept wing fighters. The
- only problem was the handling near stall (and at
- small speeds) , which was indeed poor. In all
- fairness the handling of F-86 was better, wing slats
- and boosted controls gave it an advantage on margins
- of the envelope, at very slow or high speeds. But
- proper tactics could easily neutralize this: you
- should't go slow anyway in a fight and if you're
- caught at high speed just point the nose up and make
- a gentle spiral climb until you can maneuver better.
-
-
- P.S. I have good news for you Skychimp. Now that the
- patch is clearly coming I ordered FB. I hope that
- you still have a drop of pride and dignity to honour
- your challenge you made once to me.

Excuse me, Einstein. I never challenged you to anything. It was YOU that stated you wanted to fly against me, Bf-109 versus P-51, remmember? It was during one of your little tirades where you were throwing a hissy becasue someone mentioned an American plane had a certain quality you you weighed in to "set the record straight."

I'll fly against you, though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I hope you don't put me off like you do when you say youi'll post documents and sources to back up your inane postings.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg


Message Edited on 07/06/0312:07PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:13 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Good quotes CHDT, most of the info seems reasonable.
- Now that we agree, we can draw some conclusions:
-
- MiG-15 outperforms F-86 in every flight
- characteristic except max speed at low altitudes.

Only you, Huckenbein_FW, could come up with that after reading CHDT's posts. Simply amazing, and very illustrative of your zealous bias.


- In short MiG-15 had better performance but F-86 had
- better equipment and better handling at certain
- speeds.

Another brilliant summarization.


http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/compare.JPG





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/06/0311:58AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:28 AM
yough Chimp, um..I just noticed this from Bill Gunsten's Aircraft of Soviet Union:: Apparently a special *experimental* MiG~15LL, did reach Mach 1.01 in dive from 12.2 km on 18 October 1949.

Description:: Single research aircraft MiG~15LL (Letayushchye Laboratorii, flying lab) with reduced sweep upper fin and added verntral fin giving much greater side area, fully powered rudder, increased-chord horizontal tail and many other flight control changes.

LL project under (note first initials) I.M. Pashkivskii and M.I. Masurskii, flown by A.M. Tyuteryev 21 September 1949 and soon held Mach 0.985; on 18 October reached confirmed Mach 1.01 in dive from 12.2 km and valuable in development of flight controls including yaw dampers and all flying tailplane.

* Purely a research vehicle. Not to be confused by MiG flown to South Korea.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:32 AM
GoreChild wrote:
- With the matter of kill claims you have to remember
- that just about every American jet downed was listed
- as an F-86 when in reality most of the American
- fighters lost to Migs were F-84 ground attack
- planes.

Not quite. I've gone through KORWALD (Korean War Aircraft Loss Database)line by line. Here is what it says:

USAF Air to Air Kills
Korean War
F-86 shot down 763.5 MiG-15s
MiG-15s shot down 119 F-86s (103 confirmed, 16 possible)

F-84 shot down 9 MiG-15s
MiG-15s shot down 21 F-84s

KORWALD is a huge document and it took weeks to go through it and sort out the kills/losses. Here is KORWALD data I've placed on an EXCEL spreadsheet:

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/kills.JPG


http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/navykills.JPG


http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/losses.JPG


Here is more specific ifnormation Regarding Navy victories:

50-07-03 Plog USN F9F-2 VF-51 1 x Yak-9
50-07-03 Brown USN F9F-2 VF-51 1 x Yak-9
50-11-09 Amen USN F9F-2 VF-111 1 x MiG-15
50-11-09 Lamb/Parker USN F9F-2 VF-52 1 x MiG-15
51-04-21 Daigh USN F4U-4 1 x Yak-9
51-04-21 De Long USN F4U-4 1 x Yak-9
51-06-30 Long/Buckingham USMC F7F-3N VMF(N)-513 1 x Po-2
51-07-12 Fenton USMC F4U-5N VMF(N)-513 1 x Po-2
51-09-23 Van Gundy/Ullom USMC F7F-3N VMF(N)-513 1 x Po-2
51-11-18 Webber USN F9F-2 1 x MiG-15
52-06-07 Andre USMC F4U-5N VMF(N)-513 1 x Yak-9
52-09-10 Folmar USMC F4U-4 VMF-312 1 x MiG-15
52-11-03 Stratton/Hoglind USMC F3D-2 VMF(N)-513 1 x Yak-15*
52-11-08 Davis/Fessler USMC F3D-2 VMF(N)-513 1 x MiG-15
52-11-18 Middleton USN F9F-5 1 x MiG-15**
52-11-18 Williams USN F9F-5 1 x MiG-15**
52-12-10 Corvi/George USMC F3D-2 VMF(N)-513 1 x Po-2
53-01-12 Dunn/Fortin USMC F3D-2 VMF(N)-513 1 x MiG-15
53-01-28 Weaver/Becker USMC F3D-2 VMF(N)-513 1 x MiG-15
53-01-31 Conley/Scott USMC F3D-2 VMF(N)-513 1 x MiG-15
53-06-30 Bordelon USN F4U-5NL VC-3 1 x Yak-18
53-06-30 Bordelon USN F4U-5NL VC-3 1 x Yak-18
53-07-01 Bordelon USN F4U-5NL VC-3 1 x La-9
53-07-01 Bordelon USN F4U-5NL VC-3 1 x La-9
53-07-16 Bordelon USN F4U-5NL VC-3 1 x Yak-18


It is interesting to note that the Soviets claim to have shot down more F-86s during the Korean War than were ever in Korean during the entire course of the war. The Chinese claim a similar number shot down, and the North Koreans claim 18,000 USAF planes shot down in air-to-air combat (without loss).



- One must remember that most of the Migs
- shot down were not flown by Russians but
- rather by poorly trained Chinese and North
- Korean pilots.

Almost ALL MiG missions were flown by Soviets during 1950 and 1951, and into early 1952. Chinese pilots took over thereafter. North Koreans flew very flew missions, hoping to preserve their planes for an after-war airforce.






Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg


Message Edited on 07/06/0312:11PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:36 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- yough Chimp, um..I just noticed this from Bill
- Gunsten's Aircraft of Soviet Union:: Apparently a
- special *experimental* MiG~15LL, did reach Mach 1.01
- in dive from 12.2 km on 18 October 1949.

I'm referring to the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis, the ones flown in Korea during the war.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 11:51 AM
OT:

@ Sky Chimp:

So the lawn-mower won the war ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 02:58 PM
When it comes to the Korean war, we are confronted to documents which are, on both sides, reflecting the cold war environment.

We must keep in mind that if the soviet piots claimed 1100 kills, it was far from the real losses of the UN forces.

But, on the other hand the US listed as combat losses only the aircraft lost over North Korea (those which crashed on the return trip, which went down in the sea, or which crash-landed and were, after that written-off were not officialy attributed to ennemy action).

The soviet loss records, on the other side, listed all aircraft totally lost in Korea (345), on the ground (few were destroyed there) or in the air, accident or because of combat action (including those that came back to base but were written-off after that), but aircrafts forced down but subsequently returned to service, or heavily damaged but later repaired are not listed.

BTW, if we apply the american accounting system to both sides : the soviet lost no aircraft (they didn't fly over hostile territory) and got 119 kills (perhaps more since disappeared aircraft were usually (if no elements particularly indicated air combat) credited to AAA or unknown cause) : a 119:0 rate at least : wonderful.

In fact, it seems the general rate was closer to 1:1 with the Sabre getting more kills than losses, but that's logical since the soviets went after attack aircraft which were their primary targets.

Taking this into account, and given the very close performance of the opponents, I think we can discuss for years to know if the Mig-15 was better than the F-86 or the opposite.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 05:38 PM
nicli wrote:
- When it comes to the Korean war, we are confronted
- to documents which are, on both sides, reflecting
- the cold war environment.

No kidding.......


-
- We must keep in mind that if the soviet piots
- claimed 1100 kills, it was far from the real losses
- of the UN forces.

Seems a bit high, kind of Luftwaffe like......


-
- But, on the other hand the US listed as combat
- losses only the aircraft lost over North Korea
- (those which crashed on the return trip, which went
- down in the sea, or which crash-landed and were,
- after that written-off were not officialy attributed
- to ennemy action).

Not at all true, return losses were (if they were battle damaged)
listed to enemy action!
BUT a carrier crash was not always attributed to enemy
action, Carriers were very dangerous.


-
- The soviet loss records, on the other side, listed
- all aircraft totally lost in Korea (345), on the
- ground (few were destroyed there) or in the air,
- accident or because of combat action (including
- those that came back to base but were written-off
- after that), but aircrafts forced down but
- subsequently returned to service, or heavily damaged
- but later repaired are not listed.

The Soviet's real loss records were never for the public record!
Soviet records in general were not for the public record.

American records are and were for the public record.
With the exception of "Black projects" all American
production and utilization is PUBLIC RECORD.

-
- BTW, if we apply the american accounting system to

You can't! The soviets only released what they wanted the
world to know (propaganda).


- both sides : the soviet lost no aircraft (they
- didn't fly over hostile territory) and got 119 kills
- (perhaps more since disappeared aircraft were
- usually (if no elements particularly indicated air
- combat) credited to AAA or unknown cause) : a 119:0
- rate at least : wonderful.
-
- In fact, it seems the general rate was closer to 1:1
- with the Sabre getting more kills than losses, but
- that's logical since the soviets went after attack
- aircraft which were their primary targets.
-
- Taking this into account, and given the very close
- performance of the opponents, I think we can discuss
- for years to know if the Mig-15 was better than the
- F-86 or the opposite.
-


Which was better? Tough question, tough answer.
Seems to me we are leaving the F-86H out all the argument.
F-86's had a good time to climb, except for the P-86A/F-86A
all had a time to climb of 9,300 fpm or better.
The F-86D is listed at 12,150 fpm
.
The ultimate version, the F-86H climbed at 12,900fpm.
As far as I know the H model did not make it to korea
in time for combat, but it was designed to kill Mig-15's.

No, i for one don't believe the soviet kill scores.
The US required gun camera confirmation for a kill,
or required a confirmed wreck. Much more reliable than
hearsay.

There was one Mig-15 kill disallowed for a F-51 because
of the lack of gun camera confirmation and the Mig
made it across the chineese border. It was scored as "damaged".

If you take everything at face value you might believe
the previous post. But that is what propaganda is for.
distorting the truth.

Like the German kill scores in WWII and the equally absurd
North Korean claims in the Korean war, propaganda has
great value as a moral booster and to demoralize the enemy.

The difference is all information for the US becomes public information!

All the US losses are verifiable.

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:32 PM
nicli wrote:
- When it comes to the Korean war, we are confronted
- to documents which are, on both sides, reflecting
- the cold war environment.

That's just it. There AREN'T any official Soviet documents. None have been produced and none exisit to confirm the fantastic claims of the Soviets. The Soviets claimed a VERY strict confirmation process. Yet no photographic evidence, no gun camera films and no tail numbers have been produced by the Soviets to support that they shot down more than the US losses admitted to in KORWALD.

And the suggestion that KORWALD reflects "Cold War" mentality does not fly. If the Soviets had downed as many aircraft as they claim, where is there proof? Where is the outrage in the US for all the unaccoutned for pilots and aircrew? A huge number of Korean War veterans are still alive.

There is no outrage, because there is no cover-up. KORWALD is quite simply the best, most forthright document forwarded by either country to account for its losses. The Soviets have never offered anything similar.



- We must keep in mind that if the soviet piots
- claimed 1100 kills, it was far from the real losses
- of the UN forces.

Very far from it. And only a small portion of Soviet claims actually correspond to an aircraft loss on the date claimed.

One tactic I've seen with increasing frequency to "confirm" Soviet claims is to match up a US loss listed in KORWALD to a Soviet claim, regardless of wether or not the US loss was of the type claimed, or even in the area.

For instance, the Soviets may have claimed an F-86 shot down over northwestern Korea on 10/19/50, but if it doesn't correspond to an actual F-86 loss, some historians will say "well, it must have been a misidentified F9F that was lost on that date." Nevermind the F9F that lost on 10/15/50 was lost due to a crash on takeoff of the east coast. This is how some Soviet historian attempt to confirm the claims of the Soviet pilots.



- But, on the other hand the US listed as combat
- losses only the aircraft lost over North Korea
- (those which crashed on the return trip, which went
- down in the sea, or which crash-landed and were,
- after that written-off were not officialy attributed
- to ennemy action).

Not correct. This is a falacy put forth by some Soviet historians in another "conspiracy theory" to "cheat" Soviet out of their "rightful victories." You will see its not true once you perform a line-by-line examination of KORWALD as I did.

The 119 losses I placed on the excel spreadsheet even takes into consideration losses that are of uncertain causes. For instance, if an F-86 was confirmed to have been lost to a MiG in northwest Korea on a specific date, I counted all F-86s lost on that date in that area as lost to MiGs, even if KORWALD does not state it was a loss to a MiG. 119 has a significant margin of error built into it that works to the advantage of the Soviets. CONFIRMED losses to MiGs are much lower.



- The soviet loss records, on the other side, listed
- all aircraft totally lost in Korea (345), on the
- ground (few were destroyed there) or in the air,
- accident or because of combat action (including
- those that came back to base but were written-off
- after that), but aircrafts forced down but
- subsequently returned to service, or heavily damaged
- but later repaired are not listed.

Yet the USAF has well over 600 rolls of gun camera footage showing MiG "kills", of which even Soviet air force historians say 90% of which depict actual kills (the other 10% could have been flown to base and been repaired). Other claims were verified by other means.



- BTW, if we apply the american accounting system to
- both sides : the soviet lost no aircraft (they
- didn't fly over hostile territory) and got 119 kills
- (perhaps more since disappeared aircraft were
- usually (if no elements particularly indicated air
- combat) credited to AAA or unknown cause) : a 119:0
- rate at least : wonderful.

This doesn't make any sense. The "American accounting system?" The Soviets flew the vast majority of MiG mission up through the middle of 1952. Up to that June 27, 1952, there were 390 USAF victories, the vast majority of which were MiG-15s.

For the entire war, here are the F-86 losses:
1 Loss 1950
28 Losses 1951, 1 possible
55 losses 1952, 10 possible
19 losses 1953, 5 possible

The majority of F-86 victories over MiGs came after the Chinese took over from the Soviets around mid-1952. Given that fact, its easy to seasy the Soviets were more successful than the Chinese against the Sabre, but nowhere near as good as they claimed.



- In fact, it seems the general rate was closer to 1:1
- with the Sabre getting more kills than losses, but
- that's logical since the soviets went after attack
- aircraft which were their primary targets.

Possibly, but the numbers really don't confirm it. There were 814.5 Migs shot down in ata combat during the Korean war (804.5 by USAF, 10 by the USN/USMC). There were 196 USAF aircraft shot down by MiGs during the Korean War. USN/USMC losses are not included in my numbers, but losses to MiGs were minimal due to the fact that they generally (but not always) operated in different areas.



- Taking this into account, and given the very close
- performance of the opponents, I think we can discuss
- for years to know if the Mig-15 was better than the
- F-86 or the opposite.

There is no question the planes were even matched. Pilot quality mattered here. The Soviets were better than the Chinese. The Chinese were better than the North Koreans. However, USAF pilots were more highly trained than any of the Coimmunist forces. It shows in the numbers.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:46 PM
Not only have I gone through KORWALD line-by line, I've gone through Soviet kill claims line by line and matching them up to losses reflected in KORWALD, the the rate of overclaim is astounding. Here is just a portion of what I've found that shows Soviet overclaiming from the start of the war just through June, 1951 alone:


http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/overclaims1.JPG

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/overclaims2.JPG





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:13 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Not only have I gone through KORWALD line-by line,
- I've gone through Soviet kill claims line by line
- and matching them up to losses reflected in KORWALD,
- the the rate of overclaim is astounding. Here is
- just a portion of what I've found that shows Soviet
- overclaiming from the start of the war just through
- June, 1951 alone:
-

Only take a look to the ACIG site evoked by a poster above, it seems quite accurate (images of soviet guncam on this one and claims correlated with losses for the entire war), you'll see the soviet claims were more accurate than you think (about 45 percents correct, a rate you can compare to the 66 percents correct (about the same as in LW) of the 8h AF fighters (not bombers) in WWII, and the 20-30 percents correct (though still better than the japanese one which was sometimes only 10 percents) of US fighters in the Pacific).

BTW, the US propaganda wasn't more true than the north korean one (everybody knows today that the 14:1 kill/loss ratio claimed at the time had nothing in common with reality).

As the soviet documents evoking the losses on the soviet side were official documents (for internal use) which weren't made public until the end of the cold war (the USSR denied being involved in Korea for years), they are surely more reliable than the official story published by one or another side during the cold war.

And, please don't come with this usual rubbish about the overclaiming being due to the fear of sanctions for bad combat performance : a commander who lied to his superiors was more likely to get a bullet in the back of the head than one who didn't, another point, Mig-15s HAD A GUNCAM which was used to credit kills to pilots (though, at least in the first part of the war, the soviets crediting kills with less proving records than the americans), and, finally, the UN lost about 2000 aircrafts (mostly to AAA) in Korea so, admitting that there is always an overclaim rate (of about 60 percents in this case), 1100 claims are not so ridiculous as some try to make them appear.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:38 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Good quotes CHDT, most of the info seems reasonable.
- Now that we agree, we can draw some conclusions:
-
- MiG-15 outperforms F-86 in every flight
- characteristic except max speed at low altitudes.
-
- F-86 has better handling at very low and high
- speeds. MiG-15 is easier to put in a spin but spin
- recovery is easy on both (russian pilots said that
- neutralizing controls was enough to pull out of a
- spin).
-
- Which has better armament is an open question.
- Surely MiG-15 has better bomber intercepting
- armament, but in fighter vs fighter is hard to
- decide. 23mm cannons had good balistics and is my
- favorite armament, but 6x.50 concentrated in nose
- seems a good option too. MGs might prove
- insufficient considering that shot oportunities are
- very short in jet to jet engagements.
-
- Late models Sabre had a better gunsight with range
- radar (feeded the gunsight with distance to target,
- you didn't have to adjust it constantly like you had
- to with K-13). We should say that both MiG-15 and
- F-86 had variants with search radar capability
- addded to ranging but none of them saw service in
- Korean War.
-
- In short MiG-15 had better performance but F-86 had
- better equipment and better handling at certain
- speeds.
-
-

That post pretty much sums it up. Both A/C were cutting edge fighters and very capable in air to air combat. It does say alot about the Mig that the basic airframe was used for decades with retrofits of avionics. Heck the Mig 17 was a threat to US A/C in Vietnam 20 years after it was first fielded. The Mig really might have been an unequaled threat over Korea if it had been fitted with 12.7mm MG's rather than the slow ROF cannons with there rainbow trajectory. Those guns were a huge disadvantage. They were lethal if you put a few on target but it was obvious that the high ROF .50's were much better suited to high speed fighter vs fighter combat. Which is what lead of course to the Vulcan cannon and minigun.

This thread makes me wish that Mig Alley would have been made by a more competent developer. Some of the FM's and dynamics were very good, and it had great AI and campaign features. I could never get over the lack of FX though. When I hit an aircraft with a hail of .50 API rounds or a 23mm shell I want to see flashes ,explosions and chunks of the plane coming off. Those cheesy little silvery slivers were junk. Mig Alley with the DM and FX of Il-2 and some new textures would be a hell of a game.



Message Edited on 07/06/0307:48PM by BillRK

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 09:11 PM
Mr-Awesome::
-- The ultimate version, the F-86H climbed at 12,900fpm.
-- As far as I know the H model did not make it to korea
-- in time for combat, but it was designed to kill Mig-15's.

If we are being dragged there, the best Korean War era fighter machine *not* deployed to Korea would be the Mig~17 which had even better Rolls Royce Nene engine and had none of the MiG~15's poor aerodynamics and handling.

As these "kill ratios" are all Government figures on both sides, any Guess is as good as any other Guess as to their Truth. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 10:41 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Not quite. I've gone through KORWALD (Korean War
- Aircraft Loss Database)line by line. Here is what
- it says:
-
- USAF Air to Air Kills

My statement was worded wrong, which is why it didnt have the impact I thought it would.

Here is what I said:
-- With the matter of kill claims you have to remember
-- that just about every American jet downed was listed
-- as an F-86 when in reality most of the American
-- fighters lost to Migs were F-84 ground attack
-- planes.

What I meant to say was, that even if a soviet pilot downed an F-84, they would claim an F-86 because they couldnt tell the difference (The planes did actually look pretty similar besides the swept wings of the 86 etc.)

But if they didnt really down that many F-84's then never mind my claim.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 11:47 PM
F-86s were way better than MIGs! They didn't have the stall/spin problems. The F-86's only problem was it's weak armament, I recall a few 86 pilots saying they emptied all their ammo on one MIG! Keep in mind, though, that if it weren't for those Nenes, The MiG would be using a Jumo!

----------------------------------------
Wow, I really look good on your six. Mind if I stay there?

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 12:34 AM
nicli wrote:

- Only take a look to the ACIG site evoked by a poster
- above, it seems quite accurate (images of soviet
- guncam on this one and claims correlated with losses
- for the entire war), you'll see the soviet claims
- were more accurate than you think (about 45 percents
- correct, a rate you can compare to the 66 percents
- correct (about the same as in LW) of the 8h AF
- fighters (not bombers) in WWII, and the 20-30
- percents correct (though still better than the
- japanese one which was sometimes only 10 percents)
- of US fighters in the Pacific).
-
- BTW, the US propaganda wasn't more true than the
- north korean one (everybody knows today that the
- 14:1 kill/loss ratio claimed at the time had nothing
- in common with reality).

14:1 to one is indeed incorrect. However, in the 1970s the USAF endeavored to correct that with the report "Sabre Measures Charlie". KORWALD had done an even more remarkable job in laying on the table the losses and reasons for aircraft lost in Korea. To date, the Russians have stuck to their absurd claims of over 1,200 USAF planes shot down, while admitting far less than they actually lost.



- As the soviet documents evoking the losses on the
- soviet side were official documents (for internal
- use) which weren't made public until the end of the
- cold war (the USSR denied being involved in Korea
- for years), they are surely more reliable than the
- official story published by one or another side
- during the cold war.

"Surely more reliabe?" How do you come up with that? 50 years of lying and secrecy about their involvement Korea and suddenly we should believe their ridiculous claims?

There was quite a good reason for Soviets to overclaim. His name was Jospeh Stalin. Soviet pilots were told that failure could put their families at risk. No wonder they overclaimed to such a huge degree. And no wonder they won't admit their real losses.



- And, please don't come with this usual rubbish about
- the overclaiming being due to the fear of sanctions
- for bad combat performance

To late, Nic, already done. To deny this fact is to deny history.



- a commander who lied to
- his superiors was more likely to get a bullet in the
- back of the head than one who didn't,

And one who failed miserably was even more likely. Soviet history is replete with such instances. Soviet pilots had a well founded fear of failure.



- another point,
- Mig-15s HAD A GUNCAM which was used to credit kills
- to pilots

Where is the 1,200 or so rolls that confirm their claims? They sure haven't been found yet. Where are the tail numbers of the planes, or the photographic evidence of their victories?

It's amazing how many US planes fell into the sea. Quite convenient.

Soviets were quite able to produce evidence of planes shot down that correspond to US actual US losses, but where are the hundreds of other picture, wreckages, pilots remains, or guncam fils that would confirm the vast majority of thweir claims? You would think that given the number of Soviet claims, at least A FEW photos would exist that would prove a loss not represented in KORWALD, but they have yet to produce it.


Easy, they don't exist because the Soviets lied about their victories.

And how does one explain the fact that the Soviets claim to have shot down more F-86s then were ever in korea during the entire length of the war. Because if true, if Soviet claims are correct, then they managed, single handedly, to shoot down every single F-86 that ever served in Korea during the entire length of the war, plus some. The Chinese claim a near equal number.



(though, at least in the first part of the
- war, the soviets crediting kills with less proving
- records than the americans)

No kidding. On December 22, 1950, Soviets claim to have shot down 5 F-86s. In reality, 1 was lost. 5 MiGs were confirmed shot down.

On 12/24/50, the Soviets claim to have shot down 4 F-86s. in reality, none were lost. No MiGs were shot down that day, either.

And on it goes.



, and, finally, the UN
- lost about 2000 aircrafts (mostly to AAA) in Korea
- so, admitting that there is always an overclaim rate
- (of about 60 percents in this case), 1100 claims are
- not so ridiculous as some try to make them appear.


Ok, of the 2,000 or so plane lost, the Soviets shot down 1,100 of them.

Simply spectacular.



Nevermind that the USAF, the largest participant in the war, lost only 203 aircraft in ata combat. The vast majority were lost to ground fire, and accidents.

So, what service or country accounts for the other 800+ aircraft claimed by the Soviets? South Africa? Great Britian? South Korea? Fact is, none do. The Soviets did not shoot down 1,100 aircraft (with the majority of those claimed as being F-86s). The claim is absolutely absurd.

That simply does not support a 60% overclaim rate. The Soviets overclaimed by a much larger margin.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/07/0304:09AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:32 AM
I see SkyChimp again as trying to force this bunch of bull upon us.
Nice tables you made Chimp, but what do they prove? Only that info on KORWALD database is far from complete. Nice try Chimp..

By the way nothing can change this - USAF officially revised downward their claims from over 800 to 379. Doesn't it makes US overclaiming coefficient a little bit higher then 2 for Korean War? Officially? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Russians really lost about 350 MiG-15 (I have to recheck again).
How many North Koreans and Chinese lost also known.

Soviet clamed about 1000 for the MiGs. For them the biggest problem was probably misidentification of one type of jet with another, like counting F-84 as F-86.

All UN Forces lost more then 2000 aircrafts (to all causes).
Are you trying to tell us that US pilots were so inept that they could not fly their planes to a battle zone and the majority of 2000 planes lost were in the training accidents, take-off and landings?

By the way - really nice method - not to count plane damaged in combat, if it managed to pool away from the enemy controlled territory as a combat loss. I guess, now it would be called "creative accounting".

Don't get upset, overclaiming coefficient of 2 is much better then German 4 to 7 in WW2. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/06/03 08:33PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/06/0308:34PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:50 AM
Bogun::
-- All UN Forces lost more then 2000 aircrafts (to all causes).

Does "UN Forces" include USA losses, as well as Soviet losses?

Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:54 AM
Bogun wrote:
- I see SkyChimp again as trying to force this bunch
- of bull upon us.

Bull? Perhaps a little proof from the Soviet side regarding their claims?



- Nice tables you made Chimp, but what do they prove?

They prove the Soviets overclaimed by a huge margin.



- Only that info on KORWALD database is far from
- complete. Nice try Chimp..

Of course its not complete Bogun! Of course not.

And you are going to offer that proof that has been so long in coming from the Soviet side to prove it?

Nice try? That award goes to you, Bogun. The Soviets have lied and lied about their claims and you just go along with it..

Now, put your proof where you mouth is and support your argument.



- By the way nothing can change this - USAF officially
- revised downward their claims from over 800 to 379.

Really Bogun? And what is the source of 379? I've seen that bandied about on the net with no source for so long (mostly by you) that it its a staple of these conversations.

The "official" credits given by the AF was here:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_korean_ab.html

So knock off the crap about 379. It's wrong.




- Doesn't it makes US overclaiming coefficient a
- little bit higher then 2 for Korean War?

No. Apparently, USAF was far more accurate than the Soviets. But then again, the Soviets got paid for each plane they "shot down" so they had great motivation to overclaim.



- Russians really lost about 350 MiG-15 (I have to
- recheck again).

The Russians claim 350 lost to ALL causes. But from 11/8/50 (the date of the first USAF MiG kill) to the end of June 1952 shows 366 Communist planes, almost all MiGs, shot down. It was during this time that the the Soviets, almost exclusively, flew MiG missions. Interstingly, the USAF maintains gun camera films for over 600 MiG kills that even soviets admit show the destruction of around 90% of the MiG shown therein. Therefore, its clear that not only did the Soviets lie about their vicotries, they lied about there losses as well.




- How many North Koreans and Chinese lost also known.

Hard to determine. Probably about 350 Soviet MiGs shot down with the balance being Chinese. The North Koreans, again, flew very few missions.



- Soviet clamed about 1000 for the MiGs. For them the
- biggest problem was probably misidentification of
- one type of jet with another, like counting F-84 as
- F-86.

Probably, but given the fact that only 21 F-84s were lost in ata combat, this doesn't account for the extent of Soviet overclaiming.



- All UN Forces lost more then 2000 aircrafts (to all
- causes).
- Are you trying to tell us that US pilots were so
- inept that they could not fly their planes to a
- battle zone and the majority of 2000 planes lost
- were in the training accidents, take-off and
- landings?

This is quite a silly statement Bogun. KORWALD shows the majority of planes were lost to ground fire.



- By the way - really nice method - not to count plane
- damaged in combat, if it managed to pool away from
- the enemy controlled territory as a combat loss.

Why should it be counted as a combat loss if it could make it home to base, be repaired and then reused in combat? That's not a kill, never has been, never will be. Well, except maybe to Soviets, who credited kills if strikes were seen on a plane.

And BTW, you make this statement and you obviously have no idea of the contents of KORWALD. The losses I presented include planes that made it back to base, but were written off. So, not only are you wrong about what constituted a kills, you are wrong about how losses were counted in KORWALD.



- guess, now it would be called "creative accounting".

That's a Soviet invention. They got paid for it.



- Don't get upset, overclaiming coefficient of 2 is
- much better then German 4 to 7 in WW2.

Not upset. Just trying to get some proof out of the Soviet side to verify their claims and their losses. After 50 years, you'd think they could come up with something useful. To date, they've failed miserably to back up their claims.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/07/0304:58AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:10 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Excuse me, Einstein. I never challenged you to
- anything. It was YOU that stated you wanted to fly
- against me, Bf-109 versus P-51, remmember? It was
- during one of your little tirades where you were
- throwing a hissy becasue someone mentioned an
- American plane had a certain quality you you weighed
- in to "set the record straight."
-
- I'll fly against you, though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But I hope you
- don't put me off like you do when you say youi'll
- post documents and sources to back up your inane
- postings.


You challanged me first, then Machine, then BuzzU and so on. Doesn't matter. Now that I got the game a week ago and you're willing to fight, we can make a nice 1vs1, you in a P-47, me in a Bf-109. I predict a 5:0 score for me/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif When shall we meet? I can any day in the morning 09.00-11.00 or late in the night 24.00-02.00, Detroit time, except week ends.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:20 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You challanged me first, then Machine, then BuzzU
- and so on. Doesn't matter. Now that I got the game a
- week ago and you're willing to fight, we can make a
- nice 1vs1, you in a P-47, me in a Bf-109. I predict
- a 5:0 score for me


I never challenged you to anything except to support some of your idiotic posts with proofs. BTW, I'm still waiting.

I must say I'm glad you got FB. Now maybe your opinions about the game will have SOME qualification.

And you further stated you wanted to meet after the patch containing the Mustang. I'll be happy to fight you then, if you still have the gumption.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/07/0305:22AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:32 AM
SkyChimp:

My mower can out turn your mower.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:53 AM
O really Chimp, by me alone?
Then this is my site:
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/sabremig.htm
this is just one example - is all over the net Chimp.

As you know Russian based their claims MAINLY on a crash sites of the enemy planes (also gun camera pictures were accepted), plus eyewitness accounts.
Here it is:
http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunion.html
So Russian overclamed, but what about those crashcites, wreckage, pictures of downed jets?

What about 170 only USAF personnel rescued from beyond enemy lines?
Did they fell from 78 F-86? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Could we assume that in addition, some were killed or captured to, perhaps?
Should we also assume that there were some US Navy and Marine pilots?
Those were unlucky not to be able to cross the battlelines or over sea coast..

What about other nations? South African SAAF's 2 Sqn lost 74 out of 97 Mustangs and four out of 22 Sabers there for example. What about all others, British, Australians etc?

Now guncamera - the deadliest weapon in US arsenal. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif even better then .50 cal jet killer /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...
US pilot makes a snapshot - and voila - "kill" or probable - it does not meter that MiG still fly and fight even if they have few bullet holes. 800 destroyed MiGs you claim. Riiight. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
And guncamera film was not even required for the claim, otherwise how do you explain "First Jet Kill" crap story?

Now Russian 37mm and 23mm cannon round leave slightly different impression on a Saberjet and on a film.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I sow some of the holes - very impressive /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
And again - for Russians - no crash site or guncamera film - no claim.

Just an example - Russian pilot kill Saber over his airfield (by the way on the Chinese side of the Yalu river). Whole airfield personnel witnessed the kill, but the flash of explosion damaged the film and wreckage of F-86 fell into the ocean few hundred miters of off the seacoast. This plane WAS NOT was not counted as a kill for Russian pilot.





AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/06/03 09:53PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/06/0309:54PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:57 AM
Bogun wrote:
- O really Chimp, by me alone?
- Then this is my site:
- <a
- href="http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/sabre
- mig.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallAr
- ms/sabremig.htm</a>
-
- this is just one example - is all over the net
- Chimp.

That's hardly an official site. and frankly, I've seen the same text, verbatim, at other sites.

Again, you are quite willing to accept what you read on RT66.com (is that an official government website http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) over the one I posted, which is a government website.





- As you know Russian based their claims MAINLY
- on a crash sites of the enemy planes (also gun
- camera pictures were accepted), plus eyewitness
- accounts.
-
- Here it is:
- <a
- href="http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunion.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunio
- n.html</a>

Bogun, the question is this: If the soviets shot down 1,100 planes, why can they only prove a few of them with such photos?

Again, the challenge is: PROVE IT! A few photos of planes that correspond to losses in KORWALD hardly lends credibility to a claim of over 1,100 plane shot down, the vast majority being claimed to be F-86s.

Simple fact is, Bogun, Russians can't prove the vast majority of their claims because the vast majority of their claims are lies.

Again, Soviets pilots got PAID for planes shot down. They had motivation to lie, and apparently did on a grand scale.



- So Russian overclamed, but what about those
- crashcites, wreckage, pictures of downed jets?

What about them? I didn't say the Soviets didn't score at all. I'm saying they lied about the vast majority of their kills.

You can show me sites all day long with a FEW pictures of crashed aircraft, but I've yet to see ONE, just a SINGLE ONE, that shows a plane that is not listed in KORWALD.

In short Bogun, if the Soviets really believe they shot down all those planes, why can't they prove it? Why can't they show a single photo of a plane that is not counted as a shootdown in KORWALD?

WHY CAN'T THE SOVIETS PROVE THIS DARNED CONSPIRACY THEORY!?

Becasue they didn't shoot down as many as they claimed, that's why.

Here's the challenge Bogun, show me a picture of crash site of a USAF plane that was shot down by a MiG that is not listed in KORWALD. It seems to be a simple thing to do given the "strict" confirmation process of the communists. But yet, after 50 years, no Russian has been able to manage it.

We are just supposed to accept their claims that they shot down 1,100 planes, without proof of the VAST majority of the claims.



- What about 170 only USAF personnel rescued from
- beyond enemy lines?
- Did they fell from 78 F-86?

How many crewmen on a B-29 or a B-26 Bogun? And given the fact that the vast majority of combat losses were to ground fire, your argument makes no sense at all.



- Could we assume that in addition, some were killed
- or captured to, perhaps?

Probably. But what of it. You seem to be under the impression that all combat losses of USAF aircraft were were due to being shot down in ATA combat. That simply is not the case.



- Should we also assume that there were some US Navy
- and Marine pilots?

Sure there were. But most, again, were lost to ground fire.



- Those were unlucky not to be able to cross the
- battlelines or over sea coast..
-
- What about other nations? South African SAAF's 2 Sqn
- lost 74 out of 97 Mustangs and four out of 22 Sabers
- there for example. What about all others, British,
- Australians etc?

Check KORWALD, Bogun. It lists UN losses, not just USAF losses.

And so what if the UN members lost those planes. Are you suggesting ALL were shot down in ATA combat?

ATA combat was almost exclusively the domain of the USAF. The British and South Africans engaged occassionally, but only the Americans were equipped to fight for air supremecy.



- Now guncamera - the deadliest weapon in US arsenal.

And the hand held camera was the Soviet's best weapon? Seems Soviet photographers either didn't know how to use their cameras, or forgot their film and awful lot.

From the Acepilots site:

1) Many Soviet medium and high-ranking officers wanted to gain favour with the Soviet dictator Josif Stalin (well known for killing or deporting Soviet generals who failed in accomplish his wishes), and one way to do so was to inflate the score of the MiG regiments in Korea.

2) The Soviet pilots earn 1,500 additional rubles for every air victory they were credited with. It is quite likely that there were many false claims, just for the money.

3) The gun camera images of the MiG-15 were of such poor quality, that the Russian guncamera analysts decided that if a US plane appeared in a pic, then they would credit a "kill," even when they did not notice shell strikes, smoke, or an ejection.




- US pilot makes a snapshot - and voila - "kill" or
- probable - it does not meter that MiG still fly and
- fight even if they have few bullet holes. 800
- destroyed MiGs you claim. Riiight.

Actually, that was the Soviet tactic. Soviet gun camera footage was so poor, that kill credits were given if only one strike was seen.

Soviets also apparently claimed aircraft shot down due to ground fire as ATA victories, even when the US loss occurred hundreds of miles away from where the kill allegedly took place.

I've actually seen this at a Korean War symposium I attended at a local University with several members of the VFW. A Russian cited a Soviet victory over "MiG Alley" on a specific date. Yet when advised no such "victory" corresponded to an actual US loss in that area, he stated that the F-86 must have been a misidentified F9F Panther that was lost ont he same date. He was totally clueless that the F9F he cited was actually lost on take-off in the Sea of Japan, a couple of hundred mile away!

This is how Soviets that front these absurd claims "try" to confirm them. Just claim any US loss for any given day as a victory, regardless of circumstance. I've seen this first hand. And it's laughable.




- And guncamera film was not even required for the
- claim, otherwise how do you explain "First Jet Kill"
- crap story?

Guncamera footage was not the only method used. Witnesses were used too.

Why is a North Korean peasant a good enough witness (even when no wreckage can be produced, much less a photo), and not a fellow fighter pilot?





- Now Russian 37mm and 23mm cannon round leave
- slightly different impression on a Saberjet and on a
- film..

Yeah, when they could hit. But the story that a single 23mm hit could totally destroy a Sabre is crap. I've got pictures of F-86s with many holes that were repaired and the plane returned to combat.

Again, take a little time and check KORWALD and you will see just how the "devestating" the MiG was and just how many F=86s could be returned to service.




- And again - for Russians - no crash site or
- guncamera film - no claim.

Bull $hit. Soviets claim many planes that "conveniently" crashed into the sea.

And again, where are those 1,100 wreckage sites and guncamera rolls.

They don't exist because the Soviets lied horrendously about their achievements.



- Just an example - Russian pilot kill Saber over his
- airfield (by the way on the Chinese side of the Yalu
- river). Whole airfield personnel witnessed the kill,
- but the flash of explosion damaged the film and
- wreckage of F-86 fell into the ocean few hundred
- miters of off the seacoast. This plane WAS
- NOT was not counted as a kill for Russian pilot.

BS again. Look at Soviet claims!

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_korean_ab.html

How many listed crashed into the sea? Where are the gun camera films for those!?

Yet they are right there, listed as victories! Many of which don't correspond to a loss in KORWALD at all!

The vast majority of those "victories" don't correspond to KORWALD losses. The Soviets have no problem being able to produce some evidence of their victories which correspond to most of the losses found in KORWALD. Yet they seem to have a really hard time coming up with evidence to support ANY of their claims that DO NOT correspond to KORWALD.

Funny how that works.



There are a couple of thing I'd like you to explain, since you seem to believe without question the Soviet claims.

1) How did the Soviets manage to shoot down every single F-86 that ever assigned to Korea during the war?

2) If the Soviets, managed that feat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, does that mean the Chinese never scored a single victory?

3) How did the Chinese manage to shoot down a near equal number of planes (mostly F-86s so they claim)?


I'd really be interested in hearing your explanation. Or even a Soviet explanation.

There were never more than 6 Fighter Interceptor Squadrons in Korea at any given time (during the whole 32 months). If Soviet claims are true, that means EVERY SINGLE PLANE in EVERY SINGLE FIS was shot down, only to be replaced by more FISs which, in turn, lost every single plane they had, as well. Hell, Soviet claims don't even allow for losses to crashes or AA. That's quite an astounding feat.



In short Bogun, after 50 years, your asserions do nothing to validate Soviet claims. If they were as good as they claim, they should have the evidence to prove it.

I, and many others, are waiting for that evidence. But since it doesn't exist, we'll be waiting a long time.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 10:40 AM
DAMM this has been an interesting thread
i myself find this period of airwarfare the most interesting

the first real jet 2 jet dogfighting in jets with a very high capability

we know the outcome of the war - a stalemate - so it leans heavily towands a topic for debate

whatever your nationalistic preferance ( i dont have one ) you HAVE to admit it was the pilot who made a kill & not the aircraft

thx a lot to you guys for posting all the infomation

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:02 PM
First point, no one said here that the soviets really shot down the 1100 UN planes they claimed over Korea (everybody admits there was an overclaim rate).

Second point, it was said several times that if those claims were all correct, the US would have lost more planes than they had in Korea, I find this statement quite strange since the actual UN losses over Korea (2000) were higher than the number of claims.

Third point, it's strange that almost all these losses are attributed to the AAA while the soviets considered that in Korea the AAA had proved ineffective (leading to the design of systems such as the Shilka).

Fourth point, if the soviet loss records for WWII or, more recently, for Afghanistan, are generally considered as accurate, then why would those for the Korean war be rubbish (records which, moreover, weren't made public, and thus couldn't be used for propaganda purposes) ?

Fifth point, some are trying to mix the actual combat performances and "official histories" of the chinese and the north koreans with the soviet records : they had nothing in common : 1. The soviet instructors themselves considered their pupils as unfit even for peacetime flying and underlined that they lost consciousness in any combat turn. 2. the "official histories" of North Korea and China were public declarations for propaganda purposes, while the soviet documents were kept secret and used for internal evaluation purposes.

Sixth point, some are calling the soviet overclaims "lies", I don't think they would like to see the US airmen in the pacific during WWII considered as among the worst "liars" of the century.

Seventh point, do you still believe that commanders such as Popkov or Kozhedub were no more than big bellies, drunks, and incompetents who made their pilot take off drunken and ate little children for breakfast ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Final question, who was your primary school history teacher, old Joe McCarthy ?


P.S. : Skychimp, as you can see, all of us can become aggressive or ironic, and we could also start using bad faith if we wanted to, so why not trying to be a little more respectful of the others' opinion ? I think this would instantly better the atmosphere of this forum.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:13 PM
Trying to go ovewr the numbers can drive one crazy. There are admitted losses, claims, counter claims, and also USAF, Russian, Chinese, NK, and UN air forces all going at it. You can just get lost trying to figure it out.

So. Is there a number, any number, agreed to by both sides, that may make some sense? A number that will give us a clue as to who is the more accurate? whether the US, with its claims, is closer to the truth, or the Soviets/Communists, with their claims of winning the air war over Korea, by downing hundreds and hundreds of F-86's?

Well, I think there is. There IS a number, agreed to by both sides, that basically ends this discussion.

15 F-86 pilots were repatriated after the war. That is, 15 captured F-86 pilots were returned from captivity to UN control after the war officially ended. 15. Both sides agree.

15 captured F-86 pilots sure corresponds better to USAF claims than Soviet, huh? That includes pilots downed, surely, from AAA?

I know, I know, the rest were rescued, right? Well, no, only 50 were plucked from behind enemy lines. Their names are readily found on many web sites.

15 repatriated F-86 pilots. Getting around that is a lot tougher than explaining how the Commies actually shot down more F-86's than were available.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:23 PM
Just curious as to what makes people think KORWALD is necessarily accurate?

Here's an example of errors. During the first Gulf War, the military and mfr. claimed a pretty high Patriot missile success rate in intercepting Scuds. This was "official."

After the was was over, and a more thorough investigation took place, it appeared that less than 10% of the missiles fired actually struck a target. One of the investigators involved gave his opinion that the true number of hits might well be zero.


See what I mean?




<img src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>

Eeeeeeeeeee.......

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:36 PM
We shouldn't forget that there were many reports of US airmen being seen in prison camps long after the war over, and that some died while in captivity, besides this, when someone is shot down it happens that the downed pilot dies in the crash.

Nevertheless, you are right to point out this element which corresponds to the US claims regarding their losses.

But, many planes, in all wars, crashed on the way back, and these are not reflected in these figures.

Combined with the fact that apart from those 50 F-86 pilots, 120 others were rescued, I think that this doesn't really contradict the soviet overclaim rate of about 60 percents evoked above.

Once, again, the figures are really uncertain and precise ones are difficult to get.

As far as I'm concerned, I think those evoked in the ACIG site are more or less credible.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:30 PM
Nosir. 15 repatriated. 50 F-86 pilots were rescued. 50. The others were pilots rescued from other types, many lost to AAA.

These 65 F-86 pilots recovered fit in very nicely with the USAF loss figures for the F-86. Remember, a percentage were lost from AAA. They make a complete hash of the Communist claims.

One must stretch mightily to make these numbers come even CLOSE to the Communist claims. There should have been HUNDREDS of F-86 pilots repatriated, if one is to believe the loss figures. Sure, some died in captivity. Some were murdered after capture. But to try to explain why so few were returned, after over 1000 claimed shot down, is to start another conspiracy theory.

Some may have even been spirited off or kept after the war. There is NO real evidence of this, however.

To try to make the AGREED UPON number of 15 F-86 pilots repatriated, and many of these were AAA victims, fit with the Communist side of this debate is pushing a losing hand.

There it is, in black and white, a number agreed upon by both sides, one you cannot get away from:

FIFTEEN.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:53 PM
Icarus999 wrote:
- Just curious as to what makes people think KORWALD
- is necessarily accurate?
-
- Here's an example of errors. During the first Gulf
- War, the military and mfr. claimed a pretty high
- Patriot missile success rate in intercepting Scuds.
- This was "official."
-
- After the was was over, and a more thorough
- investigation took place, it appeared that less than
- 10% of the missiles fired actually struck a target.
- One of the investigators involved gave his opinion
- that the true number of hits might well be zero.
-
-
- See what I mean?

Well, Icarus, the point is that after the Gulf War there WERE exaggerated claims made. And now, we know the truth. Funny how the US press works, huh?

Same thing after the Korean War. 14 to 1 was the number I grew up with. Wild claims after the war. In 1970 "Mig Check Charlie" was done, and the numbers were revised down to 8 to 1. KORWALD is a furtherance of that effort, with Russain/Soviet numbers added to the mix. The truth was arrived at eventually, just as in Gulf War I regarding the Patriot.

KORWALD is an ongoing project, BTW. As new eveidence comes in, numbers are adjusted. Recently there were new claims for F-51's looked at.

15 F-86 pilots repatriated. That number is agreed upon by both sides. 15.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:06 PM
nicli wrote:
-
- Seventh point, do you still believe that commanders
- such as Popkov or Kozhedub were no more than big
- bellies, drunks, and incompetents who made their
- pilot take off drunken and ate little children for
- breakfast ?

I've seen recent interviews with Pepalayev, the top ace of the Soviets in Korea. He does everything but admit that too many planes were attributed to him. This was not in the context of , well, all aces had more planes attributed to them than they really downed, but more along the lines of he was almost embarassed by it.

He also said, and this was riveting, that US pilots were "at least as well trained as ours were".

I think the Soviet pilots were dedicated airmen who took off every day to do a job.

They WERE allowed to claim a plane if they thought it was damaged enough to be a "write off", if I understand things. This is a blueprint to overclaim, Gentlemen, and we all know it. Soviet AAA batteries attached to flying units added their claims to the total.

Besides that, only 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated after the war. 15.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:23 PM
- You are completely wrong. The MiG-15 was incapable of
- supersonic flight. US tests proved it. The centrifugal
- engine was the drawback in this regard.

Do you have the source for this? I've seen it widely quoted that Yeager dived the MIG straight down, full power, and the plane simply wouldn't reach mach 1, which I find hard to believe.

According to your chart, the Mig 15 had a max speed of 619 mph at 30,000ft. That's mach 0.91 in level flight with less tha 6000lbs thrust (thrust was declining substantially at this alt, hence the lower speed than at 20k, despite thicker air)

In a vertical dive, the weight is effectively added to the thrust. So around 5000lbs thrust becomes around 16,000lbs thrust. More than trebling the thrust is certainly going to take the Mig past the soundbarrier, or cause it to break up.

What an Edwards AF base site has to say is:

"In one vertical power dive, Yeager pushed the MiG-15 beyond the bounds of stability and proved conclusively that the enemy plane was incapable of reaching supersonic speeds"

I take that to mean the plane became unstable and Yeager had to back off, not that it reached a terminal speed and remained there.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:59 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Besides that, only 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated
- after the war. 15.
-

I know this, but do you know that, of over 100 US airmen shot down (mainly in recon versions of the B-29 and other bombers, there were not 100 planes shot down, far from that) in incidents with the soviets during the cold war, only 4 were repatriated, and I think, one rescued in the Bering straight.

Besides that, almost all planes were claimed as F-86s, the F-86s forming the bulk of the soviet claims, remember that 2000 UN aircrafts were lost, they were mostly not F-86s.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:05 PM
But Hop, what would the difference be? If the thing was incapable of reaching mach 1, in a practical sense, what more is there?

What I'm saying is that, if going mach 1 was possible, but ended up in a crash, or loss of control, to the point a pilot was unwilling to go, then it seems to me it was incapable of supersonic flight. In a practical sense.

My understanding of this, and after our "Spitfire Dive Speed" thread a few months ago, I am pretty sure you know more than I do, some airframes just won't do it, no matter what the thrust.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:11 PM
Keep in mind that Mach number at altitude is also dependent on outside air tempreture. Also, Airspeed gauge readings are not always reliable at high speed, even with WW2 aircraft speeds there could be some 20-30 mph error range.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:31 PM
nicli wrote:
-
- Slickun wrote:
-- Besides that, only 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated
-- after the war. 15.
--
-
- I know this, but do you know that, of over 100 US
- airmen shot down (mainly in recon versions of the
- B-29 and other bombers, there were not 100 planes
- shot down, far from that) in incidents with the
- soviets during the cold war, only 4 were
- repatriated, and I think, one rescued in the Bering
- straight.
-
- Besides that, almost all planes were claimed as
- F-86s, the F-86s forming the bulk of the soviet
- claims, remember that 2000 UN aircrafts were lost,
- they were mostly not F-86s.
-
Friend, if they were shot down up North, any surviving is amazing. But, that is apples and oranges.

Switching the claims from the F-86 to the F-84 brings up more problems than it solves.

1. The F-86 had swept wings, the F-84 straight. If the Sov pilots couldn't get that right, why believe anything else they say. That is a basic, easy thing to get right.

2. The US lost only a few dozen F-84's to MiGs. Many fewer than F-86's. The overclaiming problem becomes worse.

3. We are talking about MiG-15 vs F-86. Switching claims from the F-86 to the F-84 makes the Saber's superiority even more pronounced.

So. You seem to be making the case for the Soviet's claims to be right, or close. Getting around the 15 repatriated F-86 pilots is done by:

1. Sowing some conspiracy stuff about F-86 pilots disappearing, murdered, moved off to the the Soviet Union, or just kept behind, in enough numbers (many many hundreds) to make the numbers OK with the Soviet claims.

2. Switching an unknown number (many many hundreds) of F-86 claims to the F-84, even though the UN admits to very few atoa losses and the type had straight wings.

3. Ignoring Chinese and NK claims.

4. Ignoring the AAA losses and accidents in all this.

5. Ignoring the UN and USAF records as to losses.

I tend to think the 15 repatriated US F-86 pilots, combined with the 50 rescued, matches just about exactly right the admitted UN losses of F-86 pilots in the Korean war, both to enemy aircraft and AAA. 65 returned certainly looks better next to the UN figures than the Communist figures.


However, you are certainly free to choose which side to believe in all this. I just think that the one figure both sides agrees on, 15, is much, much more supportive of the UN version.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:50 PM
- But Hop, what would the difference be? If the thing
- was incapable of reaching mach 1, in a practical
- sense, what more is there?

No difference at all to the outcome. If you break up at, say, 0.95, or drag is greater than thrust (including weight converted to thrust) at 0.95, the end result is you're not going faster than 0.95.

I am merely interested in why. I've seen it claimed before (I think by Skychimp) that the Mig 15 simply reached a terminal speed, and wouldn't go faster, even if you risked airframe failure. That drag was greater than thrust+weight, in other words.

- some airframes just
- won't do it, no matter what the thrust.

Some airframes will break up before reaching mach 1. If you put in enough thrust, you will either reach mach 1 or the plane will disintegrate. What Skychimp seems to be suggesting is that the Mig 15 in a full vertical dive hasn't got enough thrust, including the 11,000lbs provided by gravity, to reach mach 1.

I think it's more that the Mig 15 became unstable, and/or risked structural failure, before it ran out of thrust in a vertical dive.

Either way, it means the Mig 15 wasn't supersonic, even in a dive.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:55 PM
OK. I'm with you.

I don't know which it was, instability or lack of being able to overcome drag, but Yeager says it wouldn't do it.

In his book he describes a party or something where he met one of the designers, or maybe a chief pilot. After telling the fellow he thought the MiG was poor in a dive, the other asked rather incredulously, "You DOVE it?"

Anecdotal, for sure. But interesting.

From what I've read, and what my Pop says, the F-86 went supersonic fairly smoothly.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:00 PM
Russian 64IAK (Fighter Corps) have lost about 300 MiG-15, and claimed 1300 kills, including 651 F-86. F-86 and MiG-15 are equal in combat (one of them has better turn and speed at low alt, another climb and high-alt speed), reason of such kill/loss ratio is soviet fighter pilots.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 10:17 PM
SA22 wrote:
- Russian 64IAK (Fighter Corps) have lost about 300
- MiG-15, and claimed 1300 kills, including 651 F-86.
- F-86 and MiG-15 are equal in combat (one of them
- has better turn and speed at low alt, another climb
- and high-alt speed), reason of such kill/loss ratio
- is soviet fighter pilots.
-

That shows exactly what I meant, single-engined planes were most often claimed as F-86s, while they could be anything other.

As for the identification problems, one should remain identification in air combat is very difficult (Clostermann wrote an article about it in a french magazine afew months ago), BTW american pilots in Burma even mistook Ki-43s as Me-109s.

Lets not forget that these 1300 claims are also including the AAA ones (the 64IAK, was an air defence unit, and, as such, included the soviet AAA).

Final point, I didn't say the soviet claims were accurate, I always admitted there was overclaim but not at a rate that defies human understanding (with a 60 percents overclaim rate "only").

We shouldn't, however, forget that, Mig-15s were not claimed only by F-86s and that the 345 Mig-15 losses registered by the soviets were all written off aircraft, whatever the reason why they were lost.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 11:21 PM
Respectfully, but horsefeathers.

Hundreds of F-84's were NOT lost in air to air combat. That is an invention after the fact. Oh, uh, you mean all those F-86 kills are demonstratably impossible? Uhh, well, I know!! It had to be another type! The F-84 does nicely. yeah, that's it.

That is just ex post facto hogwash. If one can't tell the difference between a swept wing A/C and a straight wing bird, often with wing tip tanks, then how can one take any of this seriously?

Giving even half of the F-86 claims to the F-84 brings up EXACTLY the same problems the F-86 claims by the Russians have. Giving it to ANY other type brings up the same problem. Very few of anything other than an F-86 was lost to the MiG-15. Skychimp listed the totals in one of his posts. The Russians are claiming far far more planes than the UN admits losing.

This brings up another set of problems:

1. Tactical problems. The MiG's were forced to fly above the F-86's altitude. Everyone agrees to that. Where did all these downed F-84's come from?

2. Another tactical problem. F-84's were most often used as CAS. Near the front lines. that was an area the MiG very seldom got near, for fears that a downed Russkie would be caught. All agree to this. This is one reson the F-84, obviously inferior to the MiG-15, had so few atoa losses. The two types just didn't mix much.

3. If so many F-84 losses occurred, why no F-86 escorts after the problem got severe? The answer is simple, the threat was from AAA, and an F-86 was useless there.

Ahhh shoot. This is ridiculous. Throw up a problem for the Soviet claims, and a crazy excuse is given.

1. We lied and most AAA losses and accidents were really due to the MiG-15. Forget that the ratios of AAA and accidental losses are the same for all wars the US fought in.

2. We lied about how many planes limped away from the combat, only to crash or be written off. Nice of the Russians to keep count for us on that.

3. Ok. So we claimed more F-86's than ever flew in theatre. It must have been F-84's. Forget not being able to do a basic plane ID, swept vs straight, tip tanks vs not. Our pilots couldn't do that, but could down US WW2 vets in droves.

4. All the pilots were rescued, murdered, spirited away, or crashed over water. This explains away the 15 F-86 pilots repatriated after the war.

5. I don't know why the war wasn't won outright after controlling the skies. those wussy Chinese couldn't cut it on the ground.

6. The secret of upped assembly line production, grieving families, and concerned Brass Hats has been contained from the US press. No one in the US knows how many Sabres went down to the thundering cannon of the Soviet pilots (who couldn't tell the difference between an F-84 and F-86, over and over and over again). The secret is still safe. Heck, even the pilots in the squadrons that were savaged have kept quiet.

7. In every other war we believe the folks doing the dying. Not this one. In the Korean air war, we believe the folks doing the claiming, right? The claimers (Soviets) get the nod over the losers (the UN). Why? Because they say so, forget the UN records.

It goes on and on.

Let me say it again. 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated. No amount of spinning gets away from that.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 11:31 PM
nicli wrote:

- That shows exactly what I meant, single-engined
- planes were most often claimed as F-86s, while they
- could be anything other.

The number of jet losses, for other than the F-86, was extremely minimal.

USAF jet losses to MiGs were as follows:

9 F-80s
21 F-84s
119 F-86s.

Even if all the F-80s and F-84s were cases of mistaken identity, it still does not account for the huge overclaim on the part of the Soviets.

As far as I can tell, there were only 1 or 2 F9F Panthers lost in ATA combat with MiGs, with the Panthers scoring 5 MiG kills during the duration of the war.

It is difficult to believe that even a Soviet pilot unfamiliar with UN aircraft would mistake one of the handful of British Meteors that were downed by MiGs.

So we are left with no plausible explanation for the all the Soviet kill claims that don't correspond to an actual US losses, except that A) the US won't admit its losses, or B) the Soviets lied about their kills.

Given the fact that anyone and their brother can research these matters here, and their has been ZERO outcry over unaccounted for fighter pilots, B is a far more believable answer.



- As for the identification problems, one should
- remain identification in air combat is very
- difficult (Clostermann wrote an article about it in
- a french magazine afew months ago), BTW american
- pilots in Burma even mistook Ki-43s as Me-109s.

The F-80 and F-84 were straight wing fighters. Its difficult to believe they mistook these straight winged planes for the swept winged Sabre.



- Lets not forget that these 1300 claims are also
- including the AAA ones (the 64IAK, was an air
- defence unit, and, as such, included the soviet
- AAA).

That still does not explain the 600+ F-86 kills that are claimed in ATA combat.



- Final point, I didn't say the soviet claims were
- accurate, I always admitted there was overclaim but
- not at a rate that defies human understanding (with
- a 60 percents overclaim rate "only").

600+ Sabres claimed versus, very liberally, 119 actual losses. The overclaim rate was far above the arbitrary 60 percent.



- We shouldn't, however, forget that, Mig-15s were not
- claimed only by F-86s and that the 345 Mig-15 losses
- registered by the soviets were all written off
- aircraft, whatever the reason why they were lost.

On the USAF side, the F-86 claimed the vast majority, 763 out of 804. The next highest scoring aircraft was the B-29, followed by the F-84, F9F Panther, F-80, F3D-1 Skynight, F-94, B-26, and F4U-4 respectively.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 12:06 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- Do you have the source for this? I've seen it widely
- quoted that Yeager dived the MIG straight down, full
- power, and the plane simply wouldn't reach mach 1,
- which I find hard to believe.
-
- According to your chart, the Mig 15 had a max speed
- of 619 mph at 30,000ft. That's mach 0.91 in level
- flight with less tha 6000lbs thrust (thrust was
- declining substantially at this alt, hence the lower
- speed than at 20k, despite thicker air)
-
- In a vertical dive, the weight is effectively added
- to the thrust. So around 5000lbs thrust becomes
- around 16,000lbs thrust. More than trebling the
- thrust is certainly going to take the Mig past the
- soundbarrier, or cause it to break up.
-
- What an Edwards AF base site has to say is:
-
- "In one vertical power dive, Yeager pushed the
- MiG-15 beyond the bounds of stability and proved
- conclusively that the enemy plane was incapable of
- reaching supersonic speeds"
-
- I take that to mean the plane became unstable and
- Yeager had to back off, not that it reached a
- terminal speed and remained there.


There are several sources:



From:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_98.shtml

The reality was a bit different as test pilot Stepan Mikoyan explains:
"The MiG-15 fighter had sweptback wings but the sweep was only thirty-five degrees and the wings were relatively thick, therefore its speed limit was M 0.92 (for an aircraft with a non-sweptback wing M 0.8 was the maximum). In the Korean War the pilots who were trying to escape or were chasing him in a dive at full-throttle sometimes exceeded the never-exceed speed. Whenever that happened they were supposed to throttle down and deploy the speed brakes, but in combat nobody really did that. So we, the test pilots of the fighter section, were instructed to test the MiG-15 in steep dives to assess the risk of that maneuver and to devise some practical recommendations for combat pilots. I was among those engaged in those tests. Thanks to the MiG-15's sweptback wings, its longitudinal control was not affected by high speed diving, whereas the lateral control effectiveness was decreased and the aircraft would roll to the left due to the engine rotation moment. It took us several flights to realize it, but once we did, we developed a certain pattern of diving in which a steep dive was entered with the aircraft already banking to the right. It turned out that even in a vertical dive at full power the MiG-15 was unable to reach M 1.0-with its aerodynamic layout the air drag was simply far too great. Therefore we could report that there was no longer the danger of exceeding the limit speed."



From:
"MiG Alley: Sabres versus MiGs Over Korea"
Warren E. Thompson and David R. McLaren

Chapter Ten, "Comparing the Combatants", page 164, from tests performed by Captain H. E. Collins, Major Charles Yeager and Lt. Colonel Eugene Sommerich, USAF.

"However, the MiG-15bis's critical Mach was far less than the Sabre's, which could exceed Mach 1 in a dive. The MiG was limited to Mach .94, and despite several attempts could not be pushed beyond Mach .98"



These sound as if the terminal velocity was not in excess of mach 1. This from Soviet and USAF test pilots.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 12:17 AM
OK. I'm going to say something good about Soviet pilots.

They are never spoke of by US pilots except in respectful tones. US pilots had the utmost respect for the "Honchos". According to the Sabre pilots, it was evident immediately upon entering the fight one was facing an experienced pilot, or "Honcho". I heard pilots over at my house talk of them often (I grew up on AF bases, and my Dad was a career fighter pilot). There were two types of enemy pilots according to them, easy meat and the Honchos, who were tough as nails.

MiG-15's forced the US B-29's to fly only at night. It was quickly evident that the escorts could not stop the MiG-15 from getting to the bombers, and they did great damage in their attacks. Since there were never more than about 110 B-29's available at any one time in the FEAF, a few losses and crash landings moved the missions from daylight to darkness. Big win for the Communists.

BTW, Skychimp. I don't think any MiGs were really downed by B-29's. Again, I believe the folks doing the dying (or not), not the gunner claims.

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 12:39 AM
Here is a complete list of

Soviet PVO Forces in Korea
November 1, 1950 - July 27, 1953
and their individual unit ATA combat victory claims:

28th IAD
67th IAP 6
139th GIAP 23

50th IAD
29th GIAP 36
177th IAP 24

151st GIAD
28th GIAP 23
72nd GIAP 13

324th IAD
176th GIAP 107
196th IAP 108

303rd IAD
17th IAP 108
18th GIAP 92
523rd IAP 102

32d IAD
224th IAP 33
535th IAP 19
913th IAP 29

97th IAD
16th IAP 26
148th GIAP 41

133d IAD
147th GIAP 21
415th IAP 28
578th IAP 4
726th IAP 39

190th IAD
256th IAP 16
494th IAP 23
821st IAP 44

216th IAD
676th IAP 33
781st IAP 11
878th IAP 38

282d IAD
518th IAP 31

37th IAD
236th IAP 0
282d IAP 0
940th IAP 0

100th IAD
9th GIAP 0
731st IAP 0
735th IAP 0


Independent Regiments under 64th Fighter Aviation Corps

351st IAP 10

298th IAP 4


Total ATA victory claims: 1092


Source: "Red Wings Over the Yalu", Xiaoming Zhang, Texas A&M Press, pages 219-223

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 02:09 AM
Slickun wrote:

- MiG-15's forced the US B-29's to fly only at night.
- It was quickly evident that the escorts could not
- stop the MiG-15 from getting to the bombers, and
- they did great damage in their attacks. Since there
- were never more than about 110 B-29's available at
- any one time in the FEAF, a few losses and crash
- landings moved the missions from daylight to
- darkness. Big win for the Communists.


This is incorrect, and yet another myth that has been conjurred up about the MiG-15. (Not attacking you, Slick)

The heaviest single day B-29 losses to MiG-15s occurred on October 23, 1951, otherwise known as "Black Tuesday."

Soviets claim to have intercepted 22 B-29s and over 200 fighters on this day. They claimed the destruction of 12 B-29s and 4 F-84s for ZERO losses.

In fact, the Far East Air Force (FEAF) had only sent up 9 B-29s and 55 F-84s, and suffered only 3 bombers and 1 Thunderjet lost. F-86s that joined the melee later shot down 9 MiGs.

B-29s shot down by MiGs that day:

42-94045
44-61940
44-70151


B-29s damaged by MiGs but returned to base and were repaired:

44-27347
44-61816
44-61824
44-86295
44-87760

It appears ALL B-29s that day were at least damaged. 1/3 of the group lost. But a far cry from the 12 claimed destroyed.



Ultimately, the FEAF switched to night-time bombing because of heavy losses to flak, not MiGs. Triple A over Pyongyang alone accounted for a lot of B-29s, and AAA in general accounted for more B-29s lost than MiGs did during the entire war.

During the entire course of the war, 39 B-29s were lost to Communist fighters (37 to MiGs, 2 to Yaks (listed as unknown prop types)). About 104 B-29As and 4 RB-29As were lost during the entire war. Most lost due to enemy action were lost to AA.

The FEAF did, indeed, switch to nightbombing, and never switched back to day bombing even after absolute airsuperiority was yet again achieved. The reason for the switch from day bombing to night bombing was because MiGs were for the most part incapable of operating at night, and AA effectiveness was significantly reduced.

The main reason the FEAF never switched back, even after absolute air superiority had yet again been achieved, was because the FEAF determined they were just as effective at night as in the day, with reduced risk. Also, the USAF and USMC had a somewhat substantial night fighter presence over North Korea that was capable of protecting bombers from the few Communist night fighters available.


Big win for the Communists? It certainly appeared that way. But ultimately it did no good whatsoever as the USAF was able to continue its bombing campaign with near impunity and equal effectivenss.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/08/03 05:11AM by SkyChimp

Message Edited on 07/08/0305:37AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 02:25 AM
This is how I cut grass/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif :



http://www.exmark.com/images/largelazerZLC.jpg



<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942





Message Edited on 07/07/0309:26PM by FW190fan

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 02:28 AM
I don't have the cup holder though/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

(couldn't afford it after buying the mower)


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 02:36 AM
I have a cup holder. And a place to put an umbrella!

One day I plan to have a yard that will require this to mow:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/media/images/photogallery/8520_70648_G.jpg



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/08/0305:48AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 02:49 AM
I bet the umbrella and cup holder creates havoc on that John Deere's drag coefficient.

I can cut grass at 12mph baby!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 02:53 AM
FW190fan wrote:
- I bet the umbrella and cup holder creates havoc on
- that John Deere's drag coefficient.


LOL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 03:07 AM
FW190fan wrote:

http://www.exmark.com/images/largelazerZLC.jpg



Wha...! What the hell? Is that... Is that a velour seat?

You have a lawn mower with a velour seat? What the hell?

Do you pimp while you landscape? I bet you have curb-feelers on that thing, don't you? Tell the truth, now!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:10 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- All this reminds me of that most excellent flight
- simm - Mig Alley.

Dang bet me to it. I liked Mig Alley as long as you stayed far away from the terrian grfx. Really fun trying to stay alive in the mustang.


- In that simm the Mig15 is the better plane -
- particularly the Bis

EH? not necessarly. I could have success in either (flying differently of course.

J pretty much found that sim to be spot on with most of what ppl are saying in this thread.

Mig: turns tighter but squirrly at low speeds, climbs faster, accelerates faster, slower top end tho, also aiming that cannon is like lobbing spit balls

Sabre: Faster http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

not that these comparisons mean that much. If flown well either one could win in "mig Alley"

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 03:15 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- This is incorrect, and yet another myth that has
- been conjurred up about the MiG-15. (Not attacking
- you, Slick)
-
- The heaviest single day B-29 losses to MiG-15s
- occurred on October 23, 1951, otherwise known as
- "Black Tuesday."
-
- Soviets claim to have intercepted 22 B-29s and over
- 200 fighters on this day. They claimed the
- destruction of 12 B-29s and 4 F-84s for ZERO losses.
-
- During the entire course of the war, 39 B-29s were
- lost to Communist fighters (37 to MiGs, 2 to Yaks
- (listed as unknown prop types)). About 104 B-29As
- and 4 RB-29As were lost during the entire war. Most
- lost due to enemy action were lost to AA.
-
Forgive me for picking and choosing the stuff to respond to. I promise I won't take anything out of context on purpose.

The FEAF had concluded its Strategic operations before Black Tuesday. There was nothing left to precision bomb in NK. They were concentrating on area type bombings of airfields to deny the Communists access to any fields south of the Yalu.

To say, yeah, you spanked us, but we were going to fly at night anyway next week, well, if I was a Communist I'd claim a win. The B-29's could radar bomb an airfield effectively at night, that is true.

The FEAF was VERY careful with its B-29 fleet. There were not that many left in the entire inventory, and the loss of three out of 9, with all the rest suffering damage, was close to disastrous. Flying at night suddenly seemed a GREAT idea, whether it had been contemplated before or not.

I did a detailed study a few years back, without KORWALD, and concluded that the US lost 16 B-29's shot down, 24 more written off as they were so badly damaged they couldn't be repaired. You say 39 were destroyed. I'm assuming that includes shot down AND written off. I was one off.

I think the Soviets claimed 60 or so. This is off the top of my head. So, 40 lost, 60 claimed. Not too bad, huh?

I dunno. Shot down isn't the same as damaging a plane that made it back to base, only to be written off later.

1. The pilot and crew, at least some, get back safely to base.
2. The planes parts are available for cannibalization. Not too different from a plane that wears out from normal combat ops. It isn't totally destroyed, unless it burns up.

It brings up another point. Where does the attacking pilot get off, saying his bullets damaged the plane badly enough to cause it to be written off? Apparently the Soviets used that as a basis for claiming victories. If they couldn't tell an F-84 from an F-86, then assuming judgement skills sufficient to tell that a damaged plane will be written off is a stretch.

Plus, the US did not do that. No pilot got a claim from thinking that the enemy plane returned to base only to be written off later. There was nothing in the claims department to handle that. "Damaged" or "Probable" meant exactly that....damaged but returning to base, or probably shot down. "Probable" did not mean probably written off, but probably shot down. Either way, it did not go into the pilot's victory column.

The US overclaimed, of course, but not because they used "written off" as a judgement for a claim. They overclaimed because the plane they thought they had shot down made it back to base, not shot up as badly as the US pilot thought.

I'm wondering. Did the Soviets use this system in WW2? Did their folks get to extrapolate and claim "write off's". Lets be clear here. Allowing claims for planes thought to be badly damage enough to be "written off" means you KNOW you didn't shoot it down. You KNOW you didn't force it down in flames, or kill the pilot. But you are sure you really messed it up enough to cause it to be destroyed, even though it flew away.

It flew away! And you claimed it anyway! Did the Soviets do this in WW2?

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 06:34 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- In fact, the Far East Air Force (FEAF) had only sent
- up 9 B-29s and 55 F-84s, and suffered only 3 bombers
- and 1 Thunderjet lost. F-86s that joined the melee
- later shot down 9 MiGs.
-
- B-29s shot down by MiGs that day:
-
- 42-94045
- 44-61940
- 44-70151
-
-
- B-29s damaged by MiGs but returned to base and were
- repaired:
-
- 44-27347
- 44-61816
- 44-61824
- 44-86295
- 44-87760

I am really amazed by the SkyChimp audacity to go to "Korean War Aircraft Loss Database" in "Circumstances of Loss" column to give us the number of the "repaired" B-29. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Nice try Chimp, real nice! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Here is a data I found for "Black Tuesday" - October 23, 1951


====================

US Data (Unofficial)

From http://www.vfw.org/magazine/oct01/42.htm

US
9 B-29 Superfortses of the 307th Bombardment Wing
34 F-86 Sabres of the 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing
55 U.S. F-84 Thunderjets of the 49th and 136th Fighter-Bomber wings
9+34+55=98 Total (?)
vs -----------
44 MiGs from the 303rd and 324th Air divisions

====================

Russian Data (Unofficial)

From http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.htm

US - Almost 200 fighters and 21 bombers
vs -----------
Russain - 44 MiG-15 (out of total 56 in the area), 12 held in reserve, did not take part in action.

==================

According to the article in Veterans of Foreign Wars magazine "... 248 aircraft swirling in the sky above Namsi... "
248 - 44(MiG-15) - 98 (USAF) = 106 planes not accounted so far.
What planes are those? May be some more B-29? What about (?) Meteors from RAAF 77th Squadron? They were there!
What else is missing?

====================

Russian Claims (Unofficial)

From the http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.htm, Page 2
12 B-29, 4 F-86

Official, From http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunion.html

All planes claimed on the day 23/10/51 in whole Korea

B-29 Tetsuzan303 IAD/18 GIAP
B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
F-84 Tetsuzan303 IAD/18 GIAP
F-84 Taisen 303 IAD/523 IAP
F-84 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP

=================

US Claims (Unofficial)
9 kills, 6 probable, 4 damaged

(Official) From http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_korean.html

All planes claimed on the day 23/10/51 in whole Korea

BANKS RALPH E CPT 10/23/1951 MIG 15 F 86
CREIGHTON RICHARD D MAJ 10/23/1951 MIG 15 F 86
FORTNER FARRIE D 1LT 10/23/1951 MIG 15 F 84
SPIVEY FRED R SGT 10/23/1951 MIG 15 B 29
WEBB JERRY M SSG 10/23/1951 MIG 15 B 29

****************************************
LOSSES

Russian losses (Unofficial) - one MiG-15 to F-86 on a return to base trip over Chinese territory.

Do not know official number for the day.
===============

US (Official) From http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_date.htm

511023 B-29A 42-94045 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-27347 307th Bmb Wg 372nd Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-61816 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-61824 307th Bmb Wg 370th Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-61940 307th Bmb Wg 372nd Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-70151 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-86295 307th Bmb Wg 372nd Bmb Sq
511023 B-29A 44-87760 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
511023 F-84E 50-1220 136th Ftr-Bmbr Wg 111th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
511023 F4U-5N 123180 MAG-12 VMF(N)-513

Some bombers had crash landed and were written off - those are SkyChimp's "repaired" B-29's! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

=================
I took claim numbers for whole Korea - I don't know if all planes were claimed in the same air engagement.

Officially (no Russian official loss data for the day, unofficial number used):
Russians claimed 7 planes for 10 admitted US losses. Overclaming 0.7:1.
US claimed 5 planes for 1 Russian loss. Overclaming 5:1.

Unofficially:
Russians claimed 16 planes for 10 admitted US losses. Overclaming 1.6:1.
US claimed 15 planes for 1 Russian loss. Overclaming 15:1

Make you own conclusions.....


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/08/03 01:37PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/08/0302:53PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 08:04 PM
I've already spoke on this. The MiG's did a job on the US forces. The US didn't win every time, every day.

There is no reason to disbelieve the Russian admitted losses, they were doing the dying. Just as there is no reason to discount the UN admitted losses (this goes for the entire war as well). If one is going to quote, and believe the Russian side on its losses, and thus see how the UN did, really, then do the same for the UN loss records. Use them to see how the Russkies did, and don't use Russian claims.

Some good folks fall into this trap. They believe everything the Russkies claim for victories is gospel, and if the UN loss records don't match, the UN is lying or mistaken. Then, turn around and discount UN victory claims if they don't match Russian losses. That is a double standard.

Simply using the two sides' loss records shows the way the war went, based on believing who was doing the dying. If you ignore the victory claims, and look at admitted losses, one can see how it went from that perspective.

Black Tuesday was a good day for the Communists, no doubt. But cherry picking one day, perhaps the best day of the war, to make a case the UN's take on how the air war went was wrong, and the Communist claims were right, is to ignore the fact that only 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated after the war.

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 08:33 PM
Slickun wrote:
- I've already spoke on this. The MiG's did a job on
- the US forces. The US didn't win every time, every
- day.
-
- There is no reason to disbelieve the Russian
- admitted losses, they were doing the dying. Just as
- there is no reason to discount the UN admitted
- losses (this goes for the entire war as well). If
- one is going to quote, and believe the Russian side
- on its losses, and thus see how the UN did, really,
- then do the same for the UN loss records. Use them
- to see how the Russkies did, and don't use Russian
- claims.
-
- Some good folks fall into this trap. They believe
- everything the Russkies claim for victories is
- gospel, and if the UN loss records don't match, the
- UN is lying or mistaken. Then, turn around and
- discount UN victory claims if they don't match
- Russian losses. That is a double standard.
-
- Simply using the two sides' loss records shows the
- way the war went, based on believing who was doing
- the dying. If you ignore the victory claims, and
- look at admitted losses, one can see how it went
- from that perspective.
-
- Black Tuesday was a good day for the Communists, no
- doubt. But cherry picking one day, perhaps the best
- day of the war, to make a case the UN's take on how
- the air war went was wrong, and the Communist claims
- were right, is to ignore the fact that only 15 F-86
- pilots were repatriated after the war.
-
-
Slickun,
I agree with most of what you say, but this has to apply for both sides.
I do know that Russian overclaimed, just as Americans or Germans or any other nationality. Also plane misidentification was common for all sides in all conflicts - Finns were "shooting" Lightning and P-51 and Russians - He-113 during WW2, Americans - IL-2, Yak-7, La-7 and Pe-2 in Korea, etc, etc, etc.

But please consider this:
This is US Data:
". AIR FORCE CASUALTIES IN KOREA
Far East Air Forces (FEAF) sustained 1,180 deaths in Korea, according to the original tabulations. That figure included 1,144 deaths in air operations and 36 on the ground. Some 306 airmen received wounds in the air and 62 were WIA on the ground.

The largest number of casualties were among fighter pilots-968 were KIA or MIA. Far East Bomber Command (B-29 crews) counted 280 KIA. An estimated 6,000 men flew in Bomber Command combat crews during the war.

.

In recent years, all Korean War casualties have been re-examined, resulting in a new tally for each of the services. The Air Force total now stands at 1,501 deaths. Its most lethal month was April 1951, when 81 airmen lost their lives. In October of that year 72 died, along with 63 in September."

262 US Air Force personnel were held POW during Korean War

170 US flight personnel was rescued from beyond enemy lines.

Other nationality on the UN suffered losses in the air as well.

Do you really believe those 968 KIA or MIA fighter pilots came from 78 downed Sabers or may be some info is still missing?



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/08/0303:36PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 09:09 PM
Bogun wrote -

<<Do you really believe those 968 KIA or MIA fighter pilots came from 78 downed Sabers or may be some info is still missing?>>

Certainly not. But they may well have come from the many fighter pilots flying ground support missions over Korea during the period 1950-1953 and lost to AAA. Your implied argument is therefore not conclusive unless these additional casualties can be firmly connected to the F86 squadrons.

And Bogun, please spare us all the emoticons - it's really rather adolescent. I'm interested in your data and your logic, not what degree of personal insult you can display.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 09:15 PM
Does someone know why exactly the La-15 was not engaged in Korea? I just know that a squadron was sent to a base in China, just near the Korean border, but that these aircrafts had many problems of maintenance (landing gears?)!?!

In my opinion, the light La-15 could have been a real threat to the UNO fighters in dogfights!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 10:04 PM
Bogun wrote:
- Do you really believe those 968 KIA or MIA
- fighter pilots came from 78 downed Sabers or may
- be some info is still missing?

Bogun, Sir, BOTH sides agree that 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated. BOTH sides agree. Only 15 F-86 pilots were released by the Communists after the war. That includes pilots lost to all causes, AAA, MiG's, flame outs etc, and captured by the Communists. 15. A number agreed to by both sides.

As I posted many times, it is ONE number that both sides agree on, that gives us a clue as to what really happened.

Let me ask you. Can you, in good conscience, make that number fit the Russian claims?



The vast majority of the rest of the 968 were lost to AAA. AAA took a severe toll on the UN. Every one knows this. AAA took a severe toll in WW2 and Viet-Nam as well. It was only after the Soviets released their claims for the secret air war in Korea that we were asked to believe that most of the admitted losses to AAA were actually shot down by MiGs, either so secretly the UN didn't even know it, or the UN just lied and covered it up, and to keep the lie going, refused to call in another fighter wing of F-86's for the longest, even though most had been shot down.


Of the many aircrew rescued behind the lines, 50 were F-86 pilots, lost to all causes. The remaining 76 were pilots from other types.


But...forget all this. We're throwing numbers around again. There IS one number agreed to by both sides. 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated.

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 10:14 PM
Bogun wrote:
I agree with most of what you say, but this has to
- apply for both sides.
- I do know that Russian overclaimed, just as
- Americans or Germans or any other nationality. Also
- plane misidentification was common for all sides in
- all conflicts - Finns were "shooting" Lightning and
- P-51 and Russians - He-113 during WW2, Americans -
- IL-2, Yak-7, La-7 and Pe-2 in Korea, etc, etc, etc.

If one looks at US claims, and admitted Soviet losses, the US overclaimed by 1/3.

If one looks at admitted US losses, compared to Soviet claims, the Soviets overclaimed by a factor of about 6.

The above comes from author Mike Spick.

I just can't see that one can make the case, well, everybody does it. That supports the idea the Soviets won the air war over Korea. You know, both sides overclaimed by about the same margin, leaving the end result the same, a 2 to 1 advantage for the Soviets.

Sure plane misidentification happened from time to time. but pushing hundreds of F-84's with straight wings as F-86's with swept is just beyond the pale. That is simply a desperate stretch to hang onto the Soviet claims.

15 F-86 pilots repatriated.

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 11:24 PM
Rather than adjust the above post,just let me make a new one. I'm home now, and can be more precise. The above figures were from memory, and apologies for the inaccuracies.

Aviation author Mike Spick (a favorite of mine), in "Fighters at War", isbn # 0-7607-0752-9, pages 106-107, summarizes the numbers available in 1997. Some of these have been adjusted by other agencies upward or downward a bit, but the overall conclusion is valid.

USAF F-86 claims = 757.
USAF admitted F-86 losses = 103

Russian claims for F-86's = 651
Russian claims all types = 1,097
Russian admitted losses = 335

Chinese and NK claims for F-86's = 181
Chinese and NK claims all types = 271
Chinese and NK admitted losses = 231

Total Communist claims, all types = 1,368
Total Communist claims F-86 = 832
Total admitted Communist losses all types = 566

Sabre pilots claimed 1.33 above Soviet admitted losses.
Communist pilots claimed 8.07 times admitted losses F-86 only.

Saber Check Charlie, in 1970 (sort of an early KORWALD), adjusted down the 14:1 ratio to 7 1/2 to 1. Using admitted Communist losses it was actually 5 1/2 to 1.

Using a measure strictly with admitted Soviet Union losses, yet assuming every single Sabre lost was due to a Soviet pilot, the kill ratio over the Soviet pilots was over 3 to 1.

This is just totally at odds with what the Communists claim. Is there some clue as to who is closer to the reality? Some number that both sides agree on, that there is no argument over, that gives us a clue as to what actually happened?

15 Sabre pilots were repatriated after the war. 15 Sabre pilots were POW's. Which version does this agreed upon number support?

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 11:48 PM
nt = No Text

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 12:32 AM
i wouldnt trust figures from both sides, both overclaimed as much as the other.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 12:47 AM
Did you read any of my post?

The US overclaimed, against ADMITTED Soviet losses, by a factor of 1/3. These numbers are not really open to discussion. The US claims are documented and agreed upon, the Soviets losses are the ones they ADMIT to. There is NO argument here. An overclaim of a third is as good, as honest, as conservative, as one will find.

The Soviet claims are documented. All agree that this is what they claim. The American losses are the ones we ADMIT to. They overclaimed by a factor of 8. They claimed 8 F-86's for every one lost.

Now, who is lying? I'm giving the Soviets their loss claims. They did the dying. It's in stone. The US overclaimed by a third. Period.

The Soviets overclaimed by a factor of 8. Can't give the US same grace we give the Soviets in admitted losses, eh? We're lying our butts off about losses, but nearly got it right in our claims?

15 F-86 pilots were repatriated after the Korean War. Out of over 700 claimed F-86 shoot-downs, virtually all deep over Communist territoy, to avoid the Russians getting caught, 15 POW's?

I know which group I believe.

HTP,you can believe the Soviets won the air war if you wish. But, only 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated after the war. 15. Hey, I got some good farm land in Arizona I can sell you!

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 01:33 AM
Blutarski

I don't remember you going into righteous rage when SkyChimp said this to me: "bandied about on the net with no source for so long (mostly by you) that it its a staple of these conversations" but I am not allowed even to include emoticons? That was not a "degree of personal insult"?

Anyway, I am sorry.


Slickun

I actually don't have a problem with the number of 15 Saber pilots repatriated after the war.
Together with 50 recovered by the pilot rescue service this number would be very reasonable number considering the chances F-86 pilots were facing in the combat.

Just imagine:
F-86 flying high and fast deep in the territory occupied by enemies being spiked by 37mm or multiple 23mm rounds of the MiG-15 (or splinters of large caliber AAA shell, or just system malfunction). Many pilots would be dead at this point. Now, his catapult has to work flawlessly - it may be damaged too (and at that time catapults were not flawless, they were not working well even during the Vietnam war). He may be already wounded, he may be even unconscious . He either catapulted or being thrown out of the plane. He may become unconscious just because of the lack of the oxygen or the forces endured during the escape procedure, even if he was not wounded initially. He will need to survive the landing. If he manage to land on the ground beyond enemy lines - he may need to survive the greetings by the "friendly natives" and if he is wounded (and if he was not wounded initially - he will be at this point) - their, native's "medical care". Then he has to survive the captivity. Then he has to be released by his captors (there was data that not all prisoners were released by Russians or North Koreans). If all goes well and he survive all of this - he is lucky, one of the 15.

If he land in the sea - and he is conscious; and if friendly forces know about him; and if their rescue attempt succeed - he is home free, one of the 50.

About UN losses - I don't think KORWALD database is complete. Anyway, data for UN claims being revised down, data for UN losses revised up. There are already number of 3000 confirmed losses (with serial numbers) for the UN circulating among the historians. And I am sure if Russian claims be looked closely - they will be revised down - even 23mm cannon round does not kill every time, but it would end up every time on a guncamera film. This is true to much greater degree for .50 rounds of US planes and US guncamera films.

By the way, if it is not clear - I have great respect for what US and UN pilots did in Korea, for the odds they had to overcome. If I had a chose I would have fought on US side.
As for Russians - they were fighting bravely for the wrong cause, just like pilots of Legion Condor did in Spain.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/08/03 08:41PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/08/03 08:45PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/08/0308:48PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 01:41 AM
Damn it, where is my post! Stupid !^%!#$$% forums!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg



Message Edited on 07/09/0304:42AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 01:52 AM
As long as I'm at it.....I'm on a roll, folks.

Is there a precedence for this? Is there somewhere one can point to and say, hey, the Soviets did this massive overclaiming thing before? An incident, campaign, piece of a war that sets itself apart, where the Soviet claims far far exceed the admitted losses? Not by a few, but by several factors? Not just one battle, or week, but a separate section of a war, with "boundaries" one can put it into? A piece of a war that parallels the gross differences in claims to admitted losses?

Anyone know what's coming? Anyone? Yep. Stalingrad.

From August 10, 1942 until Jan 31 1943 the battle raged. After it was over, the Communists claimed some 3000 planes. The Germans admitted to 495 transport losses, most JU-52 and He-169. Almost 200 fighters lost as well. More air combat than in the entire Korean War.

Soviets overclaimed by a factor of over 4. Only half as bad as the Korean War figures, but you know how those US and LW folks lie about losses.

The above is from "Clash of Wings" by Boyne, isbn # 0-684-83915-6.

Caldwell, the keeper of JG-26's faith, also found fault with Soviet claims. In "JG-26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" isbn #0-8041-1050-6, he recites how Maj. Gen F. A. Kostenko claims that the VVS began to arrive at a sort of parity with the LW in the Demaynsk area during the Feb-Mar 1943 time frame. The LW in the area, including a contingent of JG-26, claimed 75 kills vs three losses. The pilots were totally unaware that the VVS had any success in the area at all.

OK. Enough. I've made my case. I'll shut up.

Wait. Just one more. A personal note. At one time I knew the date my Dad, in a B-26, was attacked by a night fighter. He can no longer remember the date. Anyway, I looked it up on one of the many web sites with the Soviet viewpoint, and lo and behold....there was a kill claimed over a B-26 on that date. The Soviet nightfighter fired, missed, was fired at in return, and flew away after an overshoot. My Dad's B-26 was not touched. But, the Soviet pilot made a claim that was confirmed. Cool, huh?

Oh yeah. My Pop, who was flying F-86A's at Perrin AFB in Texas before getting the B-26 slot in Korea, says that EVERYBODY knew when an F-86 went down. It just didn't happen that often, and it was news when it did. The Invader pilots kept up on the fighter war, as the ebbs and flows of it had huge repercussions for them.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 02:04 AM
Bogun wrote:
- Slickun
-
- I actually don't have a problem with the number of
- 15 Saber pilots repatriated after the war.
- Together with 50 recovered by the pilot rescue
- service this number would be very reasonable number
- considering the chances F-86 pilots were facing in
- the combat.

Are you saying that 15 Sabre pilots returned CAN support Soviet claims of over 700 being shot down? WOW!

Nearly all were downed deep inside enemy lines.

56 were believed to have gotten on the ground alive after a successful bailout following a shootdown.

Using US figures, that is roughly 50 % surviving the shootdown, about right historically. 15 making it back from captivity fits perfectly, after factoring in murders, rescues, and escapes, and remembering many of the 50 rescued F-86 pilots were flak victims.

Using Soviet/Communist figures some 350, give or take, would have survived the shootdown. 350. And only 15 made it back. 50 rescued. And the other 285? That brings up more problems than it solves. But, hey, if that's what you want to believe, go with it.

US admitted losses is the big sticking point. No one argues with the US claims, or Soviet losses. The problem is the massive disparity in the Soviet claims and US losses. 15 repatriated POW's, in my book, is an indictment of the Soviet claims. Period.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 02:10 AM
I was laughing long and hard when reading Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe".

Author think we are all stupid - he constantly compared ratios of JG-26 pilot's killed to the number of the planes they claimed. It was so funny. He did the same not just for Soviets but for British and US pilot's as well.

Read carefully again: "author constantly compared ratios of JG-26 pilot's killed to the number of the planes they claimed".

He does not compare killed pilots on both sides, he does not compare planes shut down on both sides, just this - unbelievably inflated JG-26 claims to actual number of JG-26 pilot's killed. Not even attempt to pretend evenhanded

The only funnier book is "Blond Knight"


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/08/0309:14PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 02:16 AM
Bogun wrote:

- I am really amazed by the SkyChimp audacity to go to
- "Korean War Aircraft Loss Database" in
- "Circumstances of Loss" column to give us the number
- of the "repaired" B-29. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Nice try Chimp, real
- nice! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



One bit of advice, Bogun. As one poster says, drop the laughing faces. It detracts from your otherwise meaningful posts.

I think the error that you continue to make stems from a general misunderstanding of the nature or KORWALD. You seem to be under the impression that KORWALD is a list of only LOST aircraft. That is incorrect.

KORWALD is a list of LOST and DAMAGED UN aircraft. Damaged aircraft are not LOST if they are repairable.

You continually make the assertion that the US admitted to 10 Losses on 10/23/51. That is incorrect. There are 10 entries in KORWALD for that date, but not all were losses.

The B-29s lost on that date were:

1) 44-70151
2) 44-61940
3) 42-94045
4) 44-27347
5) 44-61816
6) 44-61824
7) 44-86295
8) 44-87760
9) unlisted.

However, not all these planes were "LOST." KORWALD tells you the disposition of each plane. They are as follows:

1) Damaged by MiGs near Namsi Airfield, crew bailed out in Chinnampo/Inchon area (Yellow Sea), 3rd ARSq SA-16 Dumbos participated in SAR effort, approx 233 SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough seas

2) Damaged by MiGs near Namsi airfield, crashed 6 mi off coast of Chinnampo, 3rd ARSq SA-16 Dumbos participated in SAR effort, a total of approx 233 SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough seas

3) Downed by MiGs near Namsi airfield at 0920L, last seen in a tight spiral, 3rd ARSq SA-16 Dumbos participated in SAR effort, a total of approx 233 SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough seas

4) Damaged by MiGs, successfully recovered at Kimpo AB

5) Major damage by MiGs, repairable

6) Major damage by MiGs, repairable

7) Damaged by MiGs, landed at Kimpo AB

8) Major damage by MiGs, repairable

9) Not list because this plane was neither lost nor damaged.



- Here is a data I found for "Black Tuesday" - October
- 23, 1951
-
-
- ====================
-
- US Data (Unofficial)
-
- From <a
- href="http://www.vfw.org/magazine/oct01/42.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.vfw.org/magazine/oct01/42
- .htm</a>
-
- US
- 9 B-29 Superfortses of the 307th Bombardment Wing
- 34 F-86 Sabres of the 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing
- 55 U.S. F-84 Thunderjets of the 49th and 136th
- Fighter-Bomber wings
- 9+34+55=98 Total (?)
- vs -----------
- 44 MiGs from the 303rd and 324th Air divisions
-
- ====================
-
- Russian Data (Unofficial)
-
- From <a
- href="http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.h
- tm"
- target=_blank>http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea
- /index.htm</a>
-
- US - Almost 200 fighters and 21 bombers
- vs -----------
- Russain - 44 MiG-15 (out of total 56 in the area),
- 12 held in reserve, did not take part in action.
-
- ==================
-
- According to the article in Veterans of Foreign
- Wars magazine "... 248 aircraft swirling in the sky
- above Namsi... "
- 248 - 44(MiG-15) - 98 (USAF) = 106 planes not
- accounted so far.
- What planes are those? May be some more B-29? What
- about (?) Meteors from RAAF 77th Squadron? They were
- there!
- What else is missing?


You got the number 98 from the VFW site. You got the 248 number from that sight as well. Well, 98 is correct. That is supported by several sources. I am inclined to believe 248 is an error, but if you insist it is not, then Xiaoming Zhang, in his book "Red Wings Over the Yalu" (page 218, Appendix B, Soviet VVS/POV Forces in China, 1950-1951, states that the 64th Fighter Aviation Corps had 153 aircraft (91 in the 303rd IAD, 62 in the 324th IAD) during this time, NOT 56.

So, if more planes were present, they must have been Soviet, not UN planes.

And about the Meteors. They did not participate in the 10/23/51 actions according to Zhang who cites 64th FAC records for his data. Indeed, KORWALD shows no Meteors lost on that date at all.

According to the Soviets, Meteors participated in a railroad crossing raid the next day (10/24/51) and the Soviets claimed 3 Meteor destroyed, KORWALD shows no Meteor losses that day. Zhag states FEAF records do not support the Soviet claims either.



-
- Russian Claims (Unofficial)
-
- From the <a
- href="http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.h
- tm,"
- target=_blank>http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea
- /index.htm,</a> Page 2
- 12 B-29, 4 F-86
-
- Official, From <a
- href="http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunion.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunio
- n.html</a>
-
- All planes claimed on the day 23/10/51 in whole
- Korea
-
- B-29 Tetsuzan303 IAD/18 GIAP
- B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
- B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
- B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
- F-84 Tetsuzan303 IAD/18 GIAP
- F-84 Taisen 303 IAD/523 IAP
- F-84 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
-
- =================
-
- US Claims (Unofficial)
- 9 kills, 6 probable, 4 damaged
-
- (Official) From <a
- href="http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/a
- erial_victory_credits/avc_korean.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/w
- wwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_korean.html</a>
-
- All planes claimed on the day 23/10/51 in whole
- Korea
-
- BANKS RALPH E CPT 10/23/1951 MIG 15 F 86
- CREIGHTON RICHARD D MAJ 10/23/1951 MIG 15 F 86
- FORTNER FARRIE D 1LT 10/23/1951 MIG 15 F 84
- SPIVEY FRED R SGT 10/23/1951 MIG 15 B 29
- WEBB JERRY M SSG 10/23/1951 MIG 15 B 29
-
- ****************************************
- LOSSES
-
- Russian losses (Unofficial) - one MiG-15 to F-86 on
- a return to base trip over Chinese territory.
-
- Do not know official number for the day.
- ===============
-
- US (Official) From <a
- href="http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_date.
- htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwa
- ld_date.htm</a>
-
- 511023 B-29A 42-94045 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-27347 307th Bmb Wg 372nd Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-61816 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-61824 307th Bmb Wg 370th Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-61940 307th Bmb Wg 372nd Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-70151 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-86295 307th Bmb Wg 372nd Bmb Sq
- 511023 B-29A 44-87760 307th Bmb Wg 371st Bmb Sq
- 511023 F-84E 50-1220 136th Ftr-Bmbr Wg 111th
- Ftr-Bmbr Sq
- 511023 F4U-5N 123180 MAG-12 VMF(N)-513
-
- Some bombers had crash landed and were written off -
- those are SkyChimp's "repaired" B-29's! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Again, KORWALD, no me, states only 3 B-29s were lost and most were repaired. If you have some convincing proof to the contrary, please provide it.



- I took claim numbers for whole Korea - I don't know
- if all planes were claimed in the same air
- engagement.
-
- Officially (no Russian official loss data for the
- day, unofficial number used):
- Russians claimed 7 planes for 10 admitted US losses.
- Overclaming 0.7:1.
- US claimed 5 planes for 1 Russian loss. Overclaming
- 5:1.

If any portion of a post deserves a laughing face, this is it. I see you claimed ALL losses on 10/23/51 to demonstrate that the Soviets actually underclaimed. Nevermind that the F4U listed as lost had nothing to do with thisbattle, yet you credit to the Soviet for the purposes of showing that they "underclaimed."

Furthermore, you AGAIN state the US "admitted" 10 losses. It did nothing of the sort. You need to actually READ KORWALD before making such an assertion. KORWALD lists 4 losses on 10/23/51 to Soviet fighters. There were several damaged and repaired, but these certainly should not be counted as losses. Yet you do it.



- Unofficially:
- Russians claimed 16 planes for 10 admitted US
- losses. Overclaming 1.6:1.

The Soviets claimed 12 B-29s and 4 F-84. Actually, on 3 B-29s and 1 F-84 was lost. That's 16:4, or 4:1, of a 400% overclaim.




- US claimed 15 planes for 1 Russian loss. Overclaming
- 15:1

15? The US claimed 5 (five) kills that day. 2 to F-86s, 1 to F-84, 2 to B-29.

According to Zhang, 64th record reflect 0 (zero) losses that day.



- Make you own conclusions.....
-
-
-
- AKA_Bogun

I have concluded, that the Soviet GROSSLY misrepresented their victories during the Korean War.

During the entire 32 months of the war, 673 Sabres were assigned to Korea.

They break down as follows:

106----F-86F-5-NA
37-----F-86E-1-NA
45-----F-86E-5-NA
90-----F-86E-10-NA
45-----F-86E-6 (Canadair)
59-----F-86F-1-NA
8------F-86F-5-NA
34-----F-86F-10-NA
7------F-86F-15-NA
242----F-86F-30-NA

That's 673 Sabres that were assigned to Korea during the entire war. Yet the Soviets claim 650 or so F-86 kills during the war. The Chinese claim another 400 or so.

(The North Korean claim 18,000 ata kills for zero losses.)

So, we are to believe without question that the Soviets, single handedly, shot down every single Sabre except 23 that ever served in Korea?

The challenge stands, Bogun. If the Russians want to add some credibility to their otherwise absurd claims, then refuttable evidence of a plane shot down that does not match a loss admitted to in KORWALD should be given.

Since the Soviets claimed 531 more Sabres shot down than admitted to by the US, it should be easy for them.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 02:21 AM
Stupis forum won't let me edit.

I wrote:
"The B-29s lost on that date were:"

It should say:
"The B-29 ENTRIES on that date were:"


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 03:19 AM
Bogun wrote:
- I was laughing long and hard when reading Caldwell's
- "JG-26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe".
-
- Author think we are all stupid - he constantly
- compared ratios of JG-26 pilot's killed to the
- number of the planes they claimed. It was so funny.
- He did the same not just for Soviets but for British
- and US pilot's as well.
-
Bogun, I noticed that as well. I think the LW actual PLANE losses are incomplete, but the pilot losses are OK. Doesn't he say something about it in the appendces somewhere?

Anyway, I just multiply the pilot losses by 2. I think that gets it close enough. For government work, anyway.

Hey, right back at ya. I've already posted my respect for the Soviet pilots. They had a tough job, against top pilots, in A/C as good as theirs. They were restricted where they could fly, just as the US pilots were. US pilots had great respect, and recognized immediately they were up against, the "Honcho's".

I think they were under tremendous pressure, politically, to get kills. Same as the poor US junior officers in Viet-Nam, forced to get "body counts".

The Meteor claims are kind of famous. The MiG's bounced them, fired at all of them, scored no hits, but claimed them anyway.


Edited to include the Meteor stuff.



Message Edited on 07/09/0302:26AM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 03:38 AM
Another correction:

106----F-86F-5-NA <=====Should say F-86A-5-NA
37-----F-86E-1-NA
45-----F-86E-5-NA
90-----F-86E-10-NA
45-----F-86E-6 (Canadair)
59-----F-86F-1-NA
8------F-86F-5-NA
34-----F-86F-10-NA
7------F-86F-15-NA
242----F-86F-30-NA

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:08 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- One bit of advice, Bogun. As one poster says, drop
- the laughing faces. It detracts from your otherwise
- meaningful posts.


SkyChinp,
I have dropped smilies and apologized. I will not do it again here.

- SkyChimp wrote:
- I think the error that you continue to make stems
- from a general misunderstanding of the nature or
- KORWALD. You seem to be under the impression that
- KORWALD is a list of only LOST aircraft. That is
- incorrect.
-
- KORWALD is a list of LOST and DAMAGED UN aircraft.
- Damaged aircraft are not LOST if they are
- repairable.

Sorry, but I have read this on a KORWALD front page:
The Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) developed the Korean War Aircraft Loss Database (KORWALD) to assist U.S. researchers and analysts in their efforts to account for Korean War aircraft losses. This database associates specific aircraft with individual aircrew members, circumstances of loss, status and other data. DPMO archival researchers and analysts use the database to determine which aircrew members still remain unaccounted for. It is also used when an aircraft loss is referenced in Russian, Chinese, or North Korean documents to determine if U.S. aircrew members have already been accounted for.
There is nothing about "DAMAGED" here, in a quote, and all about "LOST"


- SkyChimp wrote:
- You continually make the assertion that the US
- admitted to 10 Losses on 10/23/51. That is
- incorrect. There are 10 entries in KORWALD for that
- date, but not all were losses.
-
- The B-29s lost on that date were:
-
- 1) 44-70151
- 2) 44-61940
- 3) 42-94045
- 4) 44-27347
- 5) 44-61816
- 6) 44-61824
- 7) 44-86295
- 8) 44-87760
- 9) unlisted.
-
- However, not all these planes were "LOST." KORWALD
- tells you the disposition of each plane. They are
- as follows:
-
- 1) Damaged by MiGs near Namsi Airfield, crew bailed
- out in Chinnampo/Inchon area (Yellow Sea), 3rd ARSq
- SA-16 Dumbos participated in SAR effort, approx 233
- SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough
- seas
-
- 2) Damaged by MiGs near Namsi airfield, crashed 6
- mi off coast of Chinnampo, 3rd ARSq SA-16 Dumbos
- participated in SAR effort, a total of approx 233
- SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough
- seas
-
- 3) Downed by MiGs near Namsi airfield at 0920L,
- last seen in a tight spiral, 3rd ARSq SA-16 Dumbos
- participated in SAR effort, a total of approx 233
- SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough
- seas
-
- 4) Damaged by MiGs, successfully recovered at Kimpo
- AB
-
- 5) Major damage by MiGs, repairable
-
- 6) Major damage by MiGs, repairable
-
- 7) Damaged by MiGs, landed at Kimpo AB
-
- 8) Major damage by MiGs, repairable
-
- 9) Not list because this plane was neither lost nor
- damaged.

Sorry here too SkyChimp, but in my limited English - "reparable" does not mean "been repaired", just "could be repaired". As a meter of fact I remember reading that heavily damaged during "Black Tuesday" B-29 were not repaired but written off. You know 37mm round do not just scribe paint off.

- SkyChimp wrote:
- You got the number 98 from the VFW site. You got
- the 248 number from that sight as well. Well, 98 is
- correct. That is supported by several sources. I
- am inclined to believe 248 is an error, but if you
- insist it is not, then Xiaoming Zhang, in his book
- "Red Wings Over the Yalu" (page 218, Appendix B,
- Soviet VVS/POV Forces in China, 1950-1951, states
- that the 64th Fighter Aviation Corps had 153
- aircraft (91 in the 303rd IAD, 62 in the 324th IAD)
- during this time, NOT 56.
- So, if more planes were present, they must have been
- Soviet, not UN planes.

No SkyChimp they were not Soviet. Both Russian and US data state - there were 44 Russian MiG-15 in a fight (22 pairs). Nowhere in any Russian sources I have ever seen any other number for Russians planes in that fight mentioned. And as far as I know there were not Chinese or North Korean either, also their participation mentioned in the link below. But again Russians always said - 44 Mig-15 in the fight.

- SkyChimp wrote:
- And about the Meteors. They did not participate in
- the 10/23/51 actions according to Zhang who cites
- 64th FAC records for his data. Indeed, KORWALD
- shows no Meteors lost on that date at all.

Here you are definitely wrong SkyChimp. Meteors were there. Meteors from RAAF 77th Squadron.
Read here: From http://www.cottonpickers.org/Black%20Tuesday.htm
But none were shot down and of course none were clamed.

- SkyChimp wrote:
-- B-29 Tetsuzan303 IAD/18 GIAP
-- B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
-- B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
-- B-29 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
-- F-84 Tetsuzan303 IAD/18 GIAP
-- F-84 Taisen 303 IAD/523 IAP
-- F-84 Teiju 324 IAP/176 GIAP
...
- If any portion of a post deserves a laughing face,
- this is it. I see you claimed ALL losses on
- 10/23/51 to demonstrate that the Soviets actually
- underclaimed. Nevermind that the F4U listed as lost
- had nothing to do with thisbattle, yet you credit to
- the Soviet for the purposes of showing that they
- "underclaimed."
-
- Furthermore, you AGAIN state the US "admitted" 10
- losses. It did nothing of the sort. You need to
- actually READ KORWALD before making such an
- assertion. KORWALD lists 4 losses on 10/23/51 to
- Soviet fighters. There were several damaged and
- repaired, but these certainly should not be counted
- as losses. Yet you do it.

I specifically took the number for the whole day for whole Korea because if took just the number of planes for the immediate area of the engagement (neat Teiju) Soviet claims and the definite US losses would be exactly the same - 3 B-29 and one F-84. EXACTLY. But I just don't know were other areas mentioned (Tetsuzan, Taisen) located. I have explaned this in PM to Slickun.


- SkyChimp wrote:
- 15? The US claimed 5 (five) kills that day. 2 to
- F-86s, 1 to F-84, 2 to B-29.
-
- According to Zhang, 64th record reflect 0 (zero)
- losses that day.

This is just not fair SkyChimp.
In you post on a previous page you presented Soviet UNOFFICIAL number of claims as OFFICIAL. This is not right.
- SkyChimp wrote:
- They claimed the destruction of 12 B-29s and 4 F-84s for ZERO losses.

In mine - I specifically mentioned both numbers for both sides. I did not misled or misinformed enyone. I did not know official number of the Soviet loss, so I took unofficial and said so.

- SkyChimp wrote:
- I have concluded, that the Soviet GROSSLY
- misrepresented their victories during the Korean War.
- The challenge stands, Bogun. If the Russians want
- to add some credibility to their otherwise absurd
- claims, then refuttable evidence of a plane shot
- down that does not match a loss admitted to in
- KORWALD should be given.
-
- Since the Soviets claimed 531 more Sabers shot down
- than admitted to by the US, it should be easy for
- them.

I do agree. Soviets misrepresented - just like the Americans.
Americans also misrepresented their number of losses.
But if Soviets never intended to brag about those numbers to anybody, ever. Period.
Americans were screaming on all the corners how much better their planes and pilots are.
How America is ready to protect the Free World against the Communist Threat. Americans had vested interest. It just now the reason to keep this myth alive no longer there.
And I do want to see all the Russian info on the open - it is long overdue by now.

PS.
I really do not understand the desire of some to project someone's nationalistic believes on all at any cost. Be that American, German, Hungarian or Russian. Some people so sure that their history, culture, military might so much better then others - no arguments could move them. They have chosen their fortress to defend, no meter what.

P-51 or P-38 or Corsair were not the Best planes of the war even if some want us to believe in this very much. Nor Spitfire. Nor Bf109 or Ta-152. Nor La-7 or Yak-9UT. So weren't F-86 or MiG-15. It was the best machine for the intended purpose manned by best man at the right time in the right place. And now - it is all history we cannot change.
Let's lower the temperature somewhat..


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 01:15 PM
So far this has been an excellent thread.
I lofe flame free threads. It got a little hot
but not so bad!

I have to agree that the re-patriation of only 15
F-86 drivers sounds a bit fischey. Especially
when compared to the bail survival rate for prop
planes with no ejection seats, 15 survivors for
over 700 planes seems a tad low.
F-86's had an effective ejection seat, primitave
but it worked reliably.

I have tried to verify the final disposition of all the
USAF tail numbers posted. The USAF does not scrap the
planes at the end of their service life, it cuts em in
half then CIVILIAN scrappers do the smelting. ALL USAF
and US Navy (All goverment planes) are well documented
and are public record. In the US the goverment does not
really own the hardware, the people do and the goverment
is accountable for it.

One major problem.... The USAF has clammed up and shut down
the sites posting ARMAC / Davis Monthatn records! Seems there
is a war ongoing and they don't want to make it easy to
track tail numbers of planes being re-activated.

90% + of the aircraft in the boneyard are only hours away
from being flyable. Most are scrapped while being airworthy!

So until the war is over (don't hold your breath) we can
not access that information.

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 01:46 PM
Bogun wrote:
- I do agree. Soviets misrepresented - just like the
- Americans.
- Americans also misrepresented their number of
- losses.
- But if Soviets never intended to brag about those
- numbers to anybody, ever. Period.
- Americans were screaming on all the corners how much
- better their planes and pilots are.
- How America is ready to protect the Free World
- against the Communist Threat. Americans had vested
- interest. It just now the reason to keep this myth
- alive no longer there.
- And I do want to see all the Russian info on the
- open - it is long overdue by now.

This is a nationalistic slam AT the US, my friend. You are asserting the US had reasons to lie about the numbers, and did it, and stays with it today. I suppose the Soviets didn't, as their cause was pure? The Soviets wouldn't even admit they were there until LONG after the US began to re-look at the data from the Korean War, on our own, with no thought the Soviets would later assert they had won the air war..

How did the US misrepresent the losses?

1. By covering up how many were actually lost? In other words, the 100 or so F-86's we admit to being lost in air to air combat was really several times (8) that? If that is the case, we have done a magnificent job of it, after all these years. The ferry pilots, squadron mates, heck, assembly line workers (we had to produce many more than we say, just to replace the hundreds lost), the US government books (the planes DID have to be paid for in the US), the families, all have kept quiet. The US press, obsessed with conspiracy investigations, has been kept quiet. They are going NUTTS over ONE missing pilot POW after Gulf War 1, but we've fooled them on Korea. Why lie about Korea? We've been very forthcoming with A/C losses in other wars.

2. We didn't count right? In other words, we didn't give a Soviet pilot a kill if the plane made it back to base. Didn't count it as lost in air to air combat. Ahhh, that's the way we've always done it. Our guys can't count a damaged or probable as a victory either. However, in KORWALD there is a line by line accounting of every plane lost, and if one wants, you can go in and see how many write offs there were.

3. We lied about how the planes were lost. We really knew the Soviets were slaughtering us, but just listed the planes as lost to AAA or accidents. This theory adds problems to #1. Not only are all the above in on the conspiracy, but all the spotters, accountants, adjudants, top Brass etc in on it as well. The US press caught Gen Westmoreland doing that in Viet-Nam, but we've fooled them in Korea. That also does not explain why, even though we were being slaughtered, losing a plane a day, we kept only one wing of F-86's in Korea for the longest.

Questions.

1. If we were so close on OUR claims (we overclaimed by 1/3) why go to all the trouble to lie about the losses?

2. How badly do YOU think the Soviets overclaimed? Remember, they claimed, by themselves, all but 23 of all the F-86's that ever served in the theatre. Throw in their proxy claims for the Chines and Koreans, and they actually claimed more. They overclaim by a factor of 8, matched against US admitted losses. I think that many will conceede that the Soviets overclaimed by a factor of two, but not go past a point that would give the F-86 an advantage. And, what is your basis for your estimation?

3. 227 UN aircrew were POW's, lost to all causes. Only 15 were F-86 jocks. According to Soviet claims, at least half should have been F-86 jocks, as nearly all were downed deep inside Communist territory, far far from safety, and about half of the 1,300 Sov claims are for F-86's.

4. Why are you tending to favor the CLAIMANT rather than the reciever? I mean, we take the Communist losses as accurate. They did the dying. They know. Instead, its getting inverted, and the burden of proof is being put on the country doing the losing. IOW, hey US, prove the Communists didn't shoot down that many planes. I think it should be the other way around, and most things I read, by most authors, agrees with this. Our records just do NOT support the idea of a Communist win in the Korean Air War. The only ones who do are pilots that served in secret, and their claims, filed in secret, dragged out after 30 years or so.

5. Why didn't the Communists WIN the Korean War if they had air superiority? I mean, according to them, they bled us white.


It's easier to just say, believe each country's adnitted losses, and make your assessments from that.

BTW, only 15 F-86 pilots were repatriated. BOTH sides agree to that.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 03:06 PM
Bogun,


Thanks for dropping the temperature. It was starting to get too hot on this thread and I just thought things needed to cool off. You don't owe me any apologies.

It is a lot more comfortable to follow this interesting discussion and debate now. I didn't think the Chimp was really going after you personally; I thought he was more criticizing the quality of the data you were presenting. But I can understand that his words could easily have been read in a different way. Hopefully everyone will follow your good example.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:06 PM
Slickun,

I don't think I am prejudice or partial (at list not much).
First - I'm not Russian and I do hate communists very much and for a long time. My nation was probably the second victim of the communist revolution in Russia (first one - being Russians themselves).
All my life I was trying to teach myself not to accept any information from any source without scrutinizing it first. FROM ANY SOURCE. It is just I have been reading information (and disinformation) coming from all the sides and for such a long time - that I am trying to make my own opinion about this subject which was interesting for me very much from the very beginning. I have been proven wrong many times and have no problem admitting it.

Would search functionality work ever again - you could have find my posts on the subject of overclaming on this forum. Especially on Russian and German overclaming.
I'm very much had it with ridiculous numbers of German claims accepted without questioning. I also got fed up with constant repetitions of some of the US guys 14:1 ratio of F-96 vs. MiG-15 losses.

I would not like to speculate on the number of planes overclaimed by Russians in Korea, but I could share with you the Russian claim procedures in Korea and the mechanisms of overclaming for Russians and for Americans as I figured out for myself while reading on the subject. I promise to be as honest and impartial as I could possibly be and I expect the same from all participants.

I do believe that subject of Overclaming deserves its own thread and clean and respectful discussion.

With great respect,









AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:36 PM
Agreed.

I've been trying to keep it strictly to the facts as well. Tying this discussion to a 13 years gone Cold War set of values will only muddy the water. If I've ruffled any feathers, forgive me. It's hard to stay low key, as I DO have a stake in this, as my Pop actually flew and fought in the war.

I've made at least three posts stating that I felt the Communist pilots were fine, honorable men, doing the best they could in a very, very tough job. This is just not me trying to BS anybody. I have just unbounded respect for any pilot or crewman, any country, that went up and put his life on the line.

I think it all comes down to ...who do you believe? The Soviet victory claims, or the UN/US records of losses?

There doesn't seem to be much heartburn about the UN claims vs Soviet admitted losses. Roughly, the US claims 700, the Communists admit losing about 500, an overclaim of about 1/3. We all seem to agree on that.

The problem is that the Communists overclaim, against the UN admitted loss figures, by a factor of 8.

This vexed me greatly, when I first heard that the Soviets were claiming victory in the Korean Air War. I have done a LOT of research into the matter, and have a ton of notes. The numbers will absolutely drive you crazy if you get into them.

Two things, in my mind, cast great doubt on the Soviet victory claims.

1. 15 repatriated F-86 pilots.

2. The Communists claim more F-86's than served, than were available to be shot down. The Soviets alone are only a couple of dozen short of that.

A third thing, not into numbers at all, is this. Almost withoug fail, when examining claims and losses in other wars, other campaigns, other places, the claimants are held to the standard of the admitted losses of the opponents.

For example,we don't really think US B-17 gunners shot down all those planes, over Germany, that they claimed. There weren't enough German fighters to supply the claims, and the German records show the US claims to be what they were, wildly off the mark. The burden of proof is on the US, and there is NO evidence to support the gunner's claims except....they said so. Who do we believe? The Germans. They did the dying, they kept the records of who didn't return etc.

Same thing with the Flying Tigers. Their kill claims are waved around like trophys. Yet several recent studies, matching FT claims to Japanese loss records, shows the FT, while actually doing very well, didn't do nearly as fantastically as they claimed. Who do we believe? The Japanese. The burden of proof is on the FT, and there is NO evidence they shot down all the planes they said they did except....they say so.

In Korea the only evidence the Communists have of 700 some F-86 kills is...they say so. AFAIK, there is no gun camera footage supporting this, no tail number evidence, nearly all the F-86's hit far behind Communist lines, The USAF purported itself as if it was winning the air war, both then and now, CAS strikes went off around the clock, there was no rush to re-train US pilots to meet the sudden threat (as in Viet-Nam).

Yet, the burden of proof here seems to be on the UN/US. Why is this? The loss records are very detailed, as US records of losses always are. Our loss records in WW1, WW2, Viet-Nam and the Gulf Wars are hardly questioned. The claims sure are, but not the admitted losses. Not so in this war. The burden of proof, my friends, as in all wars, should lie on the Communists to prove their claims,not the UN to disprove them.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:44 PM
Bogun wrote:
- I'm very much had it with ridiculous numbers of
- German claims accepted without questioning. I also
- got fed up with constant repetitions of some of the
- US guys 14:1 ratio of F-96 vs. MiG-15 losses.

I agree. Anybody that posts that is just not up to speed on things. The official US position has been, since 1970's "Sabre Check Charlie", a 7 1/2 to 1 kill ratio. This revision was done not as a result of Soviet claims. They were still, back then, officially a non-participant. It was the USAF's effort to make things right.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:15 PM
This is about F-86 pilots surviving bailing out.


15 US F-86 pilots were repatriated after the war ended.

50 US F-85 pilots recovered by the pilot rescue service from beyond enemy lines or from the gulf.

? - Number of US pilots who bail out over territory occupied by friendly forces.

? - Number of F-86 pilots of other nations (South Africans lost four F-86, for example )

I wanted to have this out of the way - this story is very ugly.

".about 30 F-86 pilots and crewmen captured during the Korean War and transferred to the Soviet Union in a secret aircraft industry intelligence operation."
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/mia-russ.htm

I have also read about North Koreans holding US pilots - prisoners of the War.

I have <u>never</u> read about Chinese holding US pilots POW, but I could be wrong.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/09/0312:51PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:49 PM
To get it out of the way:
Communist Forces official stats:
-------------
Russians 64 IAK

Claims:
Fighter shot down 1,097 aircraft
Antiaircraft units of the 64th IAK 212

Losses:
Fighters - 120 pilots and 335 aircraft
64th IAK antiaircraft units - 68 killed, 165 wounded, and one gun and one searchlight destroyed

List of all official Russian claims:
http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunion.html

-------------
Chinese dominated OVA

Claims:
Fighters claimed - 271 aircraft
PLA ground forces - 1,284 aircraft

Losses:
OVA - 135 pilots and 231 aircraft

-------------
North Koreans:
".The Indomitable and Heroic Korean Peoples' Army" destroyed 5,729 aircraft in the course of the war, damaged 6,484, and captured 11 as trophies; but as to their own losses, they have been silent."



I don't know what krapp North Koreans were smocking when they put down those numbers, but it had to be very potent stuff. And if they still really believe those numbers - they are probably still smocking it.

When I talk about Communist side in the conflict - it is only about Russians. I am not familiar with Chinese or Korean side of the story, but from time to time their participation is covered in Russian sources.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/09/0312:53PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 06:50 PM
56 pilots are known, or believed to have survived bail-out after a shoot-down.

That is about right, close to 50% of admitted US a to a losses.

Most of F-86 shoot-downs occurred far far behind enemy lines. MiG alley was near the NK/Chinese border. Soviet pilots were not allowed near the front lines for fear of discovery. By definition most F-86 losses from enemy A/C were from behind the lines, way back.

I do not know the number of bail-outs over friendly territory. There would be a lot from CAS type planes, minimum from F-86 except from flak, late in the war, as a wing was dedicated to ground attack.

The 50 rescued includes F-86 pilots from everywhere, water, behind lines, on our side but threatened, from all causes....flame outs, AAA, shoot downs, collisions. Not 50 rescued from shoot-downs only.

The 30 F-86 and "crewmen" story. How reliable? Do you have a breakdown of how many actual F-86 pilots were spirited away?

There are always reports of POW's left behind. Stretch that to cover the Soviet claims if you want to.

65 recovered from the admitted losses sounds about right to me.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:24 PM
No I don't want to.

Unfortunately, I happen to know that this story at list possible if not probable.
I happen to live in the Soviet Union and happen to know what was possible there in those years. For example I happen to know German POW from WW2 still living there at the time when I left.

And I am sorry, number 170 USAF flight personnel recovered - is for beyond enemy lines. You gave me the number 50 F-86 pilots among those.

Now don't forget 968 fighter US FEAF pilots were KIA or MIA - not Marines, not Navy not any foreign service pilots, just US Far East Air Force pilots.

Russians lost one pilot life per every three MiG-15 lost. Do you think same (or similar) ratio could be applied to UN side?


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:25 PM
Few questions...

How many F86 were lost to all causes? What kind of missions were assigned to F86s? Of course it's possible that the majority of UN losses were due to FLAK for ground attack planes like F84, F51 and so on for low caliber AAA, or B26/29 for high caliber AAA, but I have a hard time believing AAA was responsible of the majority of F86 losses IF F86 didn't do ground attack missions. So did they?

Secondly I don't know why you make such a big deal of the 15 F86 pilots that were sent back to the US. Also I'd like to know if they were handed back to the US from the NK or from the Russians themselves. If the Soviets denied involvement in the war, it would make sense that they wouldn't release pilots that could testify of their presence in the area. But of course my argument doesn't hold if the 15 were held by the Russians themselves.

Third considering the customs of communist troops in south east asia, it is not suprising that they would release only a small amount of the MIA pilots of the UN. North Korea even went so far as to kidnap people on japanese beaches to "study" the japanese people! I don't have any illusions on the means of interrogation of Russian or NK interrogators.

Also are the 350 something russian claimed Mig losses AtoA losses, or losses to all causes?

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:48 PM
All this talk about the POW's has caused me to re-look at the stuff I had.

OK. first. There were 40 rescued F-86 pilots, not 50. This is my mistake, and I apologize. The source for this can be found at

www.sabre-pilots.org/classics.htm (http://www.sabre-pilots.org/classics.htm)

in an article entitled Saving the Sabre pilots or something similar. The names

Interestingly, half of rescues take place in 1953.

And, Bogun, there is a great little article about the 31 F-86 pilots believed to have been captured and not repatriated. This is a close match to the 56 believed to have survived a shoot-down, and 15 actually repatriated. Interestingly, there is anecdotal evidence there was a special squad to capture F-86 pilots to interrogate them.

A new take on things, for me, but it doesn't change anything. More known POW's, but "numbers" wise they just take the place of murder possibilities. It appears that F-86 pilots were considered valuable property.

We can'r use 50 for the number of rescued pilots anymore. 40 was the total, but off the top of my head it looks like only about 1/2 fit the time frame of Soviet involvement. 20 may be closer to the truth.

Sorry about the slightly off numbers fellas, but the above URL is worth a look.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:52 PM
Bogun wrote:

- Russians lost one pilot life per every three MiG-15
- lost. Do you think same (or similar) ratio could be
- applied to UN side?

Depends. If you're counting write offs, that's about right. If just "shot down in flames" then 1/2 looks right. In other words, a shoot down, 1/2 survive. I think the Soviets are using write offs as well, and most of those pilots survive, raising survival rates to 2/3.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:58 PM
Nic, nearly all MiGlosses to a to a. Soviet pilots were prohibited from flying near front lines.

Go to KORWALD to see losses to all causes.

F-86 were air superiotity only until late, when one wing was dedicated ground support.

Returned from NK POW camps.

See my above post, It appears some 31 F-86 pilots "disappeared".

56 F-86 pilots were thought to have reached the ground alive.

Spin all you want. The numbers don't come close to matching up based on Soviet claims.

They do come very close to matching the UN version.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:21 PM
I'm not trying to spin anything, just asking some things that were unclear to me.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:25 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Spin all you want. The numbers don't come close to
- matching up based on Soviet claims.
-
- They do come very close to matching the UN version.

Besides the 56 pilots thought to have survived is part of the UN version so it's hardly surprising it matches the UN version is it?

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:51 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Also are the 350 something russian claimed Mig
- losses AtoA losses, or losses to all causes?


Interesting question.

I don't know the official number, but on of the participants of the conflict - retired general G. Lobov here: http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.htm
said - Russians lost "about 10" MiG's to non-combat causes. He estimated Chinese non-combat losses at "about 20".

It is 10 non-combat out of 335 total (for Russians).

I'm having real difficulty to believe that Russian planes were build so much better or training of Russian pilots was so much superior to training of US pilots, that ratio of combat to non-combat losses would be as dissimilar as KORWALD database shows.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 09:09 PM
Well the number of 40% non combat losses for some UN aircraft popped up, so 10 is very unbelievable, just like the 40% is unbelievable too IMO.

Some guys say the US can't falsify it's claims or losses because it's public and people can account them, but I think it's quite easy to decrese the AtoA losses by putting the loss on account of training/crash/AAA instead in order to make your plane/pilot look better for propaganda purpose.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

Message Edited on 07/09/0310:24PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 09:35 PM
So this very good thread about the attributes of 2 very fine second generation jet fighters has turned into an argument over kill scores. Anyone care to explain to me why you guys really care who is right or wrong over this? Oh wait I forgot I'm at UBI, aka P!ssingContest.com. We have seen this so many times and kill scores do not reflect an A/C's ability in the air.

As one poster said the US pilots had the utmost respect and fear for the Soviet pilots flying the Mig-15. I believe the airwar between the Sabre and Mig would have been very different if the quality of Mig pilots would have been anywhere near the USAF's. So basically you guys have wasted 2 pages of this thread arguing about what really comes down to nationalistic propaganda. Who cares if the Soviets overclaimed kills, it does'nt take away from the ability of these 2 planes, but once again I forgot that the real discussion part of this thread ended 2 pages ago once the advantages and disadvantages of both A/C were discussed and compared. Why do you guys love to argue such trivial and unsubstantiated facts still? Thought you would of learned after all the threads about the 109 vs P-51 or LW vs USAAF threads.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 09:50 PM
Well bill some people seem to be interested in what happened in the air war over korea.

Personally I have no doubt that both airplanes have their own merits, and are pretty close so the fight would come down to tactic and pilot merits.

Yet it's interesting to study who did what overthere, especially when there's not much flaming.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:13 PM
If you could call any of the content of the last 2 pages studying. I have yet to really read anything insightful about the combat situations, tactics or thoughts about the Korean airwar. Just Bogun, Chimp and Slick arguing about overclaims, loss ratios and the lying Russians. If you have found something insightful I have missed please post it for me. Personally I could care less if these guys have the abilitity to find the serial numbers for every plane shot down in the whole war. Dry and boring and has no real insight as to how the airwar played out in application. Would be like posting the losses of the 8th AF in WW2. Obviously your chances of living if you were a B-17 or B-24 crewman were not good, but the numbers say nothing as to how they lived or died. Same thing goes for this reduntant number posting in this thread. The vast majority of it does not describe the fighting, merely the outcome.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:16 PM
This is to clarify how Russian Claim Confirmation procedure worked in Korea.

To have his "victory" claim confirmed, Russian pilot was expected to produce some proof of the "kill". Procedure was somewhat different from end of WW2 were wreckage of the downed plane was required even to submit the claim.

In Korea it become "One of the" but no longer "necessary" component of submitting the claim due to large amount of planes crashing in the waters of the gulf and advancements in guncamera design and use. All MiG-15 (and many if not all prop planes) were equipped with guncamera.

Requirements generally were satisfied by:
1. Pilot report signed by witnesses (participants of the fight) of the enemy plane being shot down.
Of course, was expected, unless pilot is dead, then report will be filed in his behalf by one of the participants (other proof was still required)

2. Guncamera film.
Guncamera films were of lousy quality as everywhere else, the only thing helping Russian pilots was unmistakable sighs of the hits of 23mm or 37mm cannon rounds impact on the enemy planes. By itself guncamera film would be accepted as a proof only if it was clear from the film that enemy plane definitely no longer airworthy (no wing or tail).

3. Wreckage of the downed plane.
Had to be documented by the special search team confirmed by the local government of the territory were plane was shot down.

If plane fell on the enemy occupied territory or in the gulf - other proofs were required, otherwise "wreckage" was primary method.

There so much examples of pilots trying to claim obvious victory and his claims being denied just for this reason.

Now few examples:

1. American F-86 attacked MiG-15 on a take-off.
By the way, this happened over the Chinese territory north of Yalu river near the sea cost.
Russian pilot took-off, manage somehow to gain some speed and shoots down F-86 right over the airfield with all his regiment pilots, commanders, AAA crews, Chinese personnel watching. His guncamera film is overexposed by the explosion and not readable. F-86 wreckage fell in to the gulf. THIS KILL WAS NOT CREDITED TO PILOT, despite all the witnesses including his commanding officer.

2. Captain G. Gess' submits his "kill" claim, stating that he fired from very short distance - enemy F-86 blew up in the air - no wreckage to hit the ground. His teammates confirm his story, but his guncamera window fogged out - nothing is visible on the film. THIS KILL WAS CREDITED because of the loaded .50 cal ammunition belt was found embedded in the MiG's wing.

4. In the morning Dec. 28 1950 squad of MiG's was directed at the group of American attack planes and after the fight three Russian pilots claimed one kill each. KILLS WERE NOT CREDITED - engagement was overhead of friendly troops but no wreckage on the ground and not conclusive guncamera films.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/09/03 05:18PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/09/0305:19PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:11 PM
BillRK wrote:
- If you could call any of the content of the last 2
- pages studying. I have yet to really read anything
- insightful about the combat situations, tactics or
- thoughts about the Korean airwar. Just Bogun, Chimp
- and Slick arguing about overclaims, loss ratios and
- the lying Russians.

Sorry BiLLRK, but the whole thing boils down to anyone believing the Communist claims must conclude that the UN is lying about their losses. You have it backwards. Overclaiming isn't necessarily lying, just bad judgement.

Friend, if you don't like what we're discussing, skip over the posts.

Do you have anything to add, maybe about how the crews lived? Or just griping? Do you have a question? Would you like to start a separate thread? Heck, with a response like yours, I'm afraid to post anything about tactics, MiG trains, high mach cruising, nose down turning, or anything like. Afraid you would be bored again.

Hey, tell you what. I'll try harder to entertain you.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:15 PM
Bogun, nowhere do you say the Soviet pilot could claim a victory if he believed the plane was a write off. I've read, been told by Russian citizens, everybody it seems, that was the case.

If the requirements were so stringent, why the massive disparity between kills claimed and admitted a to a losses?

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:29 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
-

-
- Besides the 56 pilots thought to have survived is
- part of the UN version so it's hardly surprising it
- matches the UN version is it?
-
To accuse the US/UN of falsifying these records, and thus POW records, is to introduce an entirely new conspiracy to this thing. Now, besides lying about air to air losses, shifting air to air losses to AAA, and putting F-86 losses down as non-operational losses, the US is covering up POW data?

Sheesh. C'mon. Knowing anything about the US would move one away from that line. We're still looking for the 31 we know about. Yet, we ignore others?

It appears 31 F-86 pilots were known to be captured and not returned. 15 were returned. That puts a rather solid number on that, in my opinion.

Are you saying there were more F-86 pilots that reached the ground and captured, spirited off somehow? Maybe a few.

If you are saying the number was in the hundreds, to stretch this until Soviet claims are higher than the US claims, how was that possible?

It would mean hundreds of F-86 pilots being shot down with no one knowing they were, their wingmen in the dark, no radio call, just disappearing.

Or, we know but are covering it up, including known POW data. That we KNOW hundreds went down under good chutes, but are keeping it quiet. But ARE asking about 31 others. Now THAT is a conspiracy.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:44 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Sorry BiLLRK, but the whole thing boils down to
- anyone believing the Communist claims must conclude
- that the UN is lying about their losses. You have
- it backwards. Overclaiming isn't necessarily lying,
- just bad judgement.

Actually I don't believe the russian claims more than I believe the UN claims. Like everywhere the truth is probably in the middle.

It's pretty much like the BoB where both sides overclaimed (source the manual of BoB-their finest hours by lucas arts hehe). There is no question Nazi germany was the agressor with it's twisted ideology and all, yet the brits overclaimed just as much as the LW did. I don't think it's a matter of bad judgment, but a matter of propaganda. Everybody does it. At the pilot or squad level I agree that much overclaiming is due to bad judgment, but not in what is released to the public and so on.

The fact that russians didn't make their sources public makes them a little more credible, since they didn't have to be modified to "please" the public. Any other kind of twisting is still valid though (fear of being shot for lack of result or whatever you want), but at least propaganda was not an issue with those numbers.

Whereas numbers that were issued to be showed to the public in the US had to be sorted in a way that would justify the war to public opinion, meaning giving the illusion of superiority and that it would be won easily and not too costly... full gear propaganda, hence the initial 14-1 ration. Now nothing tells us that the 10-1 ratio is correct... who knows?

The only thing I know is that I don't trust US sources more than I trust Soviet sources, and that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle (though I'd think closer to the western side than the russian one, but probably cuz I'm from a western country right?)

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:51 PM
nicolas 10 wrote:

- Some guys say the US can't falsify it's claims or
- losses because it's public and people can account
- them, but I think it's quite easy to decrese the
- AtoA losses by putting the loss on account of
- training/crash/AAA instead in order to make your
- plane/pilot look better for propaganda purpose.
-

Do you have a shred of proof about this? Certainly you are not just going by the Soviet pilots claims as a basis?

Shifting the cause wouldn't change the POW numbers, though. Still looks like 15 repatriated, 31 unaccounted for. 40 rescued. From all causes, including AAA.

Not ONE US pilot has come forth on this, saying my wingman was shot down and listed as AAA. There were, according to this line of thought, hundreds of incidents like this.

Check the US record for other wars. 40% is right there. For example, the P-47 in WW2. As we all know, about 15,000 were produced. 2 out of 3 got into action. 5222 were lost out of about 10,000 seeing action. Only 0.7% were lost to enemy action in combat. The rest? Accidents and non-operational losses. Unless, of course, the US is fibbing about that too.


Somebody tell me why the burden of proof is on the UN? The Communists did the claiming. No one has bothered to answer this question. Get us a few hundred tail numbers or gun cameras. Hundreds of F-86's went down over NK, according to the Soviets. It should be easy to debunk UN admitted loss claims.

Instead of hard proof we have accusations of the UN cooking the books. Why is this not seen to be absurd?

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:52 PM
Slickun wrote:
- To accuse the US/UN of falsifying these records, and
- thus POW records, is to introduce an entirely new
- conspiracy to this thing. Now, besides lying about
- air to air losses, shifting air to air losses to
- AAA, and putting F-86 losses down as non-operational
- losses, the US is covering up POW data?
-
- Sheesh. C'mon. Knowing anything about the US would
- move one away from that line. We're still looking
- for the 31 we know about. Yet, we ignore others?
-
- It appears 31 F-86 pilots were known to be captured
- and not returned. 15 were returned. That puts a
- rather solid number on that, in my opinion.
-
- Are you saying there were more F-86 pilots that
- reached the ground and captured, spirited off
- somehow? Maybe a few.
-
- If you are saying the number was in the hundreds, to
- stretch this until Soviet claims are higher than the
- US claims, how was that possible?
-
- It would mean hundreds of F-86 pilots being shot
- down with no one knowing they were, their wingmen in
- the dark, no radio call, just disappearing.
-
- Or, we know but are covering it up, including known
- POW data. That we KNOW hundreds went down under
- good chutes, but are keeping it quiet. But ARE
- asking about 31 others. Now THAT is a conspiracy.

I'm not saying the US falsified such reports. They knew that 15 were sent back, and that at least 31 others reached the ground safely, but how can they know about the fate of ever single MIA pilot? Maybe more have managed to bail out, over NK only to never be heard of again. Also in your calculation you discount those who might have to bail out over friendly territory. Plus you can't really know the ratio of people who manage to jump out of the plane. I'm pretty sure a hit from a 37 gun is an entirely different thing thana hit from 12.7 mgs, and the plane is more likely to be blown out of the sky immediately (IMO).

Also I never claimed the russian shot down hundreds of planes. I know that overall russian claims (of 1100+ planes) don't overclaim the UN losses by much since the UN lost 2000 planes; It's all about the ratio that was shot by AAA and AtoA. I think we don't have enough info to judge objectively one way or the other. I just don't think the 15 pilots released prove anything, since it's impossible to know for sure how much even bailed out over NK anyway.

The best thing would be to know precisely how many F86 were lost to all causes, then try to find out which percentage was really lost due to air-air action.

Nic


http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:58 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Do you have a shred of proof about this? Certainly
- you are not just going by the Soviet pilots claims
- as a basis?
-
- Shifting the cause wouldn't change the POW numbers,
- though. Still looks like 15 repatriated, 31
- unaccounted for. 40 rescued. From all causes,
- including AAA.

From all cause including AAA doesn't mean 20 AtoA and 20 AAA. You can't apply the ratio of 1/2 AAA and 1/2 AtoA that is the average of the whole war. Especially for a type that is much less likely to meet AAA than other types like ground attack planes or bombers, and was used at very high alt over the mig alley.

For all I know 40 rescuted 'to all caused' could very well mean 38 lost to AtoA, 1 lost by accident and 1 lost to AAA. So it is hardly a proof of anything.

Once again I never said I'd accept the Soviet claims as they were quite odd, but I just want to point out that some of your arguments (your side, not urs personally) don't really hold, as we have too little info to really tell one way or the other.

Why isn't there a list of lost F86s to all causes anyway? And if there was, how could anyone know what happened for sure to a pilot who is MIA? Is there a number of MIA F86 pilots over NK?

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:00 AM
nicolas10, you are free to think what you wish. Saying both sides did it still, conveniently, gives the Communists a nice win, though.

Allow me to disagree. I think both sides are basically telling the truth about their losses. One side came close with their claims, the other was just way way off.

Soviets, by keeping the whole thing a secret, are more reliable? I think they think they are telling the truth. According to them, they are. They just overclaimed by a factor of 6 or 8. All they are doing is reporting what their pilots said, then trying to stretch UN data to match.

Backwards. The burden of proof should be on them.

You don't believe UN claims? They are pretty close. You don't believe the loss reports.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:08 AM
Well if soviet loss claims are accurate, then it means they lost around 350 planes, while the US lost 100+

So it'd mean the kill ration was around 3-1 in favour of the US, which I seem is possible.

But that's way off the 14-1 or even the 10-1 ratio isn't it?

The 14-1 claim is quite the proof of this propaganda, even though since then numbers have been revised.

I agree with you that the soviets overclaimed, but they weren't the only ones to do so.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:10 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
- The best thing would be to know precisely how many
- F86 were lost to all causes, then try to find out
- which percentage was really lost due to air-air
- action.

We know how many. The USAF and UN have had that data available for years.

- I'm not saying the US falsified such reports. They
- knew that 15 were sent back, and that at least 31
- others reached the ground safely, but how can they
- know about the fate of ever single MIA pilot? Maybe
- more have managed to bail out, over NK only to never
- be heard of again. Also in your calculation you
- discount those who might have to bail out over
- friendly territory. Plus you can't really know the
- ratio of people who manage to jump out of the plane.
- I'm pretty sure a hit from a 37 gun is an entirely
- different thing thana hit from 12.7 mgs, and the
- plane is more likely to be blown out of the sky
- immediately (IMO).

We've been over this. You know none of these things either. We do have some solid numbers though.

15 Repatriated. Both sides agree. What happened to the other 700? I'm enjoying reading the posts that ignore this, BTW. It is kind of a 400 pound Gorilla. It won't go away.

31 others are known to be captured. There MAY be a few more.

40 rescued, half in 1953.

Friend, stretch those numbers all you want. If you can make them reach 300, 400, 500 or more, go for it.

But, remember, you are doing it backwards. The burden of proof should be on the Communists. You are stretching the above solid numbers because of Communist CLAIMS, and ignoring UN admitted losses.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:18 AM
Slickun wrote:
- We've been over this. You know none of these things
- either. We do have some solid numbers though.
-
- 15 Repatriated. Both sides agree. What happened to
- the other 700? I'm enjoying reading the posts that
- ignore this, BTW. It is kind of a 400 pound
- Gorilla. It won't go away.
-
- 31 others are known to be captured. There MAY be a
- few more.
-
- 40 rescued, half in 1953.
-
- Friend, stretch those numbers all you want. If you
- can make them reach 300, 400, 500 or more, go for
- it.
-
- But, remember, you are doing it backwards. The
- burden of proof should be on the Communists. You
- are stretching the above solid numbers because of
- Communist CLAIMS, and ignoring UN admitted losses.


Are you sure you're answering to me? I must be really unclear because I thought I stated many times I did not believe in the soviet victory claims.

But the original 14-1 claim by the UN forces mean that they should have shot down more than 1400 Mig 15s right? And the Soviets admitted losing over 300 and you agree with this. So this would mean the UN claimed 4/5 times more kills than the russian lost planes!

You can't deny there was some twisting on that side too, which is my only point actually.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:21 AM
nic, we are of one mind.

If one looks at strictly Soviet losses, and ignores the admitted Chinese and NK losses, and assumes all the US air to air losses were due to Soviet pilots (I think that is probably pretty close) it is about 3 to 1.

It is way way off from the 14 to 1. THAT was baloney, propaganda. Wishful thinking.

It is off from the 7 1/2 to one Sabre Check Charlie came up with in 1970. That used total Communist losses, and overclaimed by 1/3.

Notice we are using admitted Soviet losses, with no quibbling about that. They did the dying. I believe them.

To go farther, I think a lot of the losses were write offs, which the US shouldn't have claimed, according ot their rules for victories. The Soviets did do that (claim write offs as victories), so included them in their own losses. I think that lowers the US ratio further to about 2 to 1, using US rules for victories. If I'm wrong in the assumptions in this paragraph, some one let me know.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:26 AM
Yes actually we agree on that one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (pardon the smiley)

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:34 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
-
- -
- From all cause including AAA doesn't mean 20 AtoA
- and 20 AAA. You can't apply the ratio of 1/2 AAA and
- 1/2 AtoA that is the average of the whole war.
- Especially for a type that is much less likely to
- meet AAA than other types like ground attack planes
- or bombers, and was used at very high alt over the
- mig alley.
-
- For all I know 40 rescuted 'to all caused' could
- very well mean 38 lost to AtoA, 1 lost by accident
- and 1 lost to AAA. So it is hardly a proof of
- anything.

I agree with you. Especially about the high altitude losses over MiG Alley.

I'd do a smiley, but don't know how...allow me to


:-) back at you.





Message Edited on 07/09/0311:35PM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:46 AM
Slickun wrote:
- BillRK wrote:
-- If you could call any of the content of the last 2
-- pages studying. I have yet to really read anything
-- insightful about the combat situations, tactics or
-- thoughts about the Korean airwar. Just Bogun, Chimp
-- and Slick arguing about overclaims, loss ratios and
-- the lying Russians.
-
- Sorry BiLLRK, but the whole thing boils down to
- anyone believing the Communist claims must conclude
- that the UN is lying about their losses. You have
- it backwards. Overclaiming isn't necessarily lying,
- just bad judgement.
-
- Friend, if you don't like what we're discussing,
- skip over the posts.
-
- Do you have anything to add, maybe about how the
- crews lived? Or just griping? Do you have a
- question? Would you like to start a separate
- thread? Heck, with a response like yours, I'm
- afraid to post anything about tactics, MiG trains,
- high mach cruising, nose down turning, or anything
- like. Afraid you would be bored again.
-
- Hey, tell you what. I'll try harder to entertain
- you.
-
-

Sorry Slickrun for referring to the "topic" of this thread. Should I start a new one that says "Sabre vs Mig-15...not arguing over propaganda of Korean War"? I wrote a thread pertaining to the "topic" about 3 pages ago and no one ever responded to it. I was just bringing up the fact IMO threads like this are p*ssing contests that are about as interesting as mowing the lawn. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts about tactics, MiG trains,
- high mach cruising, nose down turning, or anything
- like.
Surely would'nt bore me.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 02:33 AM
In the early days of the war, well, the early days of the MiG-15 vs F-86, the MiG's outnumbered the F-86's.

A favored tactic was to put a bunch of MiG formations following one another, strung out over many miles of airspace from front to back. Thus, a "MiG Train". If the outnumbered Sabres attacked one part, another would be on them in no time, with a chance to really accelerate and be flying at a high mach.

The Sabres figured out fairly quickly that at high machs their birds were more maneuverable. As we all know, or should, the MiG, even though fast, tended to become more and more difficult to control as the mach number rose. Snaking and a wing drop from engine centrifical force caused it to not be a very good gun platform at very high machs,where the Sabre was still fine, with a roll rate advantage. US pilots had G suits as well early on, so withstood the high G turning inherrent at high machs slightly better.

So, even though it cut down on loiter time the Sabres cruised well into the .8's on the mach scale.

To help with the reduced loiter time over MiG Alley the Sabres also adopted a form of train, with oncoming flights regularly replacing the ones on station.

Sabre pilots,even though they couldn't fly as high as the MiGs, had 40,000 feet or so to trade height for speed. Once they got bounced they'd turn into the MiGs put the nose down, and continue a very high G turn, retaining a huge energy state even though they had turned hard into the MiG. The turning abilities of the two planes were very close, but with a nose down attitude the F-86 could sustain all the G's the pilot could stand, avoiding a low speed fight. This also got the fight down into a better F-86 envelope. If the MiG tried to break off and climb away, the F-86 had a brief chance to gun him with his slightly better zoom. If the MiG tried to dive away, the Sabre had a definite advantage. Many fights were ended by one group running low on fuel.

Many Sabre pilots reported having the 23 mm tracers go above them and the 37 mm go under. They had some sort of club you could join. They were, luckily, flying between the two trajectories, past the harmonization point. I personally think the 50 cals on the F-86 were much better suited for fighter vs fighter combat. However, no comparison as far as bomber interception. The MiG was a killer.

McConnell, the leading scorer for the USAF, with 16, was shot down by Soviet ace pilot Fedorets. Fedorets bounced him and shot his F-86 to pieces. McConnell did a high G barrell roll and forced Fedorets to overshoot, then gunned him. Fedorets ejected. Mcconnell nursed his Sabre over water, punched out, and was rescued. April 12, 1953.

The Yalu River quit being much of a haven late in the war. F-86 pilots simply said they were in pursuit, starting from their side of the river, and did a lot of ignoring.

Russian pilots hated standing strip alert. They did this a lot, waiting for UN bombers. The B-29's regularly bombed the airfields south of the Yalu to deny Communist use. The Soviet pilots hated sitting in their cockpits for long periods of time.

Apparently the US intel community was aware that many or most of the pilots facing them were Russian. Evidence gained through radio transmissions etc.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 08:31 PM
Not trying to stir the pot here, but found the following interesting information in the book CRIMSON SKY - The Air Battle for Korea, by John B Bruning - a book worth reading IMHO.

On the topic of the Namsi strike, as developed through interviews with surviving B29 crew members from that mission -

Nine B-29s departed on 23 Oct 51. One returned shortly after takeoff due to mechanical difficulties, leaving eight bombers to carry on. The eight bombers linked up with an escort of F84's and proceeded toward Namsi.

Just short of the target, the bomber formation was attacked by MIG15's which penetrated the escort screen. The formation leader (pilot Shields) was hit and jettisoned its bombload in an ultimately successful effort to regain control of the crippled aircraft. The accompanying bombers also jettisoned their bombloads.

The formation leader turned for the Yellow Sea coast in order to improve his crew's chances for a friendly rescue. Four bombers followed the leader, while the other three broke formation and turned in the opposite direction. The formation was now in two separated groups, all headed toward the sea.

The bomber of pilot Shields ultimately had a wing collapse. Some of the crew successfully bailed. Total loss.

The MIGs then delivered a second attack. One B29 (pilot Krumm) was hit, suffered an explosion behind the right inboard engine, and was last seen descending, still under apparent control, into the undercast at 14,000 ft. Total loss. This aircraft crashed near the coast in N Korean territory. Total loss.

Another bomber was heavily hit, but managed to limp back to Kimpo. Write-off.

Another bomber (pilot Reeter) was raked from nose to tail by cannon fire. It limped back to Kimpo with six wounded aboard.

In the separated group of three, one bomber (pilot Foulkes) was hit in the left wing and lost number two engine afire. The crew ultimately bailed out over N Korea. Total loss.

Another stricken bomber reached Kimpo with an engine on fire.

Two other badly damaged bombers reached Kimpo. One was a write-off. The other was repairable and was ultimately flown back to Japan.

Of the nine bomber which took off on the raid: one aborted the mission; three were shot down outright; two made it back to Kimpo but were total write-offs. two made it back to Kimpo in repairable condition; one bomber was unharmed in the action. Not a good day for the home team.


.....


Author Bruning comments that a huge amount of USAF data on the Korean Air War remains inaccessible (as of 1997) due to bureaucratic infighting between the Air Force and the National Archives over which body will pay for sorting and organizing the document collection.


.....


As regards kills and losses, I quote from the book as follows -

QUOTE -

Altogether, the Soviets claimed a total of 1,300 UN aircraft destroyed during the Korean War. According to their figures, their units in Manchuria lost a total of 345 MiG-15s in combat and in operational accidents. The numbers don't match. Initial claims by FEAF came to 792 MiG-125s destroyed in return for 58 Sabres. After the war, the USAF admitted to 103 Sabre losses. Meanwhile, a USAF revision of MiG kills during the war set the total at 379.

- UNQUOTE


Draw your own conclusions.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 10:39 PM
I don't think anyone would dispute the Mig's bomber intercept ability with its cannons and superior cieling.

Those same guns seemed to be one of its biggest drawbacks as an air supremacy fighter though. High speed deflection shots were difficult to impossible for the Mig because of the low rate of fire and rainbow trajectory. This really made it hard for the Mig to cash in on that cieling height and seems it may have been a factor in the Mig engaging in turning fights at lower altitudes where the Sabre was at the least on a level playing field if not gaining an advantage with its better high mach stability.

As Slickrun said the ROF and trajectory of the .50 cal was proven more capable in this role. It would seem to me the Mig, with a better ROF weapons platform would have been a formidible BnZ fighter with the cieling advantage and good climbing characteristics, at least for the better trained and disciplined Soviet pilots. A Mig armed with 2 to possibly 12.7mm MG's and a 20mm cannon would have been much more desirable IMO. Could the plane simply been retrofitted with a new arms layout? I have no idea, but it would have been interesting if the Russians would have adjusted designs to allow for a bomber intercept version and an air supremacy version.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 12:28 AM
Howdy

Why on earth would the Soviets decrease the muzzle
velocity of the NS-37 to arm the Mig 15?

The N-37 as used in the Mig15 seems much closer to a
Mk108 in operation than the NS-37 as used in the Yaks,
LaGG's or Il2's. Thats my take anyway.

Maybe recoil and ROF are not quite "right" for the
NS-37,in Il2/FB.

I guess we wait for the patch to see...

Then again,
Maybe the 37mm in the Mig 15 had a much flatter trajectory
than what is written in the Western media..

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 01:23 AM
BgWeasel wrote:
- Howdy
-
- Why on earth would the Soviets decrease the muzzle
- velocity of the NS-37 to arm the Mig 15?


To increase its ROF to 450rnds/m from 250 of the WW2 variant.



<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 02:11 AM
Also the weight of the N-37 cannon deceased to 103kg compare to 150kg of NS-37.
Muzzle velocity was 690 m/sec - same as the muzzle velocity of the pair of NS-23 cannon's - to keep trajectory of both as close as possible within firing range.
That war extremely reliable and effective armament against all aerial targets be that bombers or fighters.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 04:55 AM
ild prefer the migs arment jus a few hits to down a plane, the war showed that 20mm or bigger was needed to be effective in fighter vs fighter combat.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 05:57 PM
I believe the Soviets kept the same armament in the MiG-17 and 19?

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 06:51 PM
This is an interesting question - usually when comparing different versions of Saber to MiG-15 only one version of MiG is mentioned - just MiG-15 with no version number after the designation, but there were many improvements made to MiG-15 and many if those variants found their way into Korean skies.
MiG-15bis variant already had two NR-23 revolver cannons replacing two NS-23 of MiG-15. Rate of fire of NR-23 was 900 rpm vs. 550 rpm of NS-23, weight of the cannons remained the same. MiG-17 inherited same armament just as early MiG-19.

This is what I found:

Original MiG-15
2x23mm NS-23 cannons

MiG-15
1x37mm N-37, 2x23mm NS-23 cannons

MiG-15bis
1x37mm N-37, 2x23mm NR-23 cannons

MiG-17
1x37mm N-37, 2x23mm NR-23 cannons

Early MiG-19
1x37mm N-37, 2x23mm NR-23 cannons

Late MiG-19
3x30mm NR-30 revolver cannons


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/11/0301:53PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:01 PM
USAF was beaten in Korea, and it doesn't matter what plane was the best. The best plane is one that is controlled by best pilot.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:03 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Bogun, nowhere do you say the Soviet pilot could
- claim a victory if he believed the plane was a write
- off. I've read, been told by Russian citizens,
- everybody it seems, that was the case.
-
- If the requirements were so stringent, why the
- massive disparity between kills claimed and admitted
- a to a losses?

Don't know Slickun and as I found out - the disparity is not that great. I have found this link:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_101.shtml
On a right side there is Latest KOREAN WAR DATABASE area (if you didn't see it already).

I believe they should not have claimed planes just damaged, just like American pilots (or any other pilots ever) should not claim those. I would not blame the pilot (with the rear exertions of few score hungry German "aces" during WW2 - and please notice - I said few not all) though. I would imagine every pilot ever to have enemy plane in his gunsight would believe that "he has him". Having the confirmation on a guncamera film would definitely solidify his believe. Add to the mix more or less ineffective weapons. Have confirmation procedures lax for one reason or another - and you have recipe for what we have now - total mess and no ending guessing game.

Overclaming is nothing new and I just remembered interesting story.
During WW1 one of the French aces (I believe it was Rene Fonck, credited with 75 kills, personally claimed 126). He was obviously accused of overclaming so often that he landed few times beyond enemy lines so salvage peaces of scrap from the plane he shot down!

And yes, Russian claim confirmation procedures become very strict in the second half of WWII - nobody was really counting in the beginning of the war - there were other priorities. There were not many gun cameras installed on Russian planes (most on lend-lease planes, but also some La-7 and Yak-9U had them) so wreckage of the enemy plane was required EVEN TO SUBMIT THE CLAIM. Many pilot's didn't bother to submit the claim if enemy plane was shot down beyond enemy lines. There were exceptions - some elite guard regiments were allowed to conduct "free hunt" beyond the frontlines - their claims were accepted often without wreckage if frontline remained stagnant and other proof of the kills (guncamera film, witness confirmation) were presented. But exceptions were very rare. Even Aleksandr Pokryshkin's claims often were not confirmed.

This is from my memory:
Pokryshkin had 17 kills from the beginning of the war to somewhere in 1942 were his records were lost - those kills officially not credited to him.
In his book he described shooting down about 90 enemy planes.
He filled the paperwork on 72 enemy planes shot down.
He was officially credited with 59 "kills".

Ivan Kozuhedub never submit the claim if he didn't see enemy plane crashing.
He also never claimed shared victory.

In all, I believe, German methodology of crediting points for "air victory" is much more fair to pilots - if enemy plane is diverted from continuing its mission - it is victory in "my book" even if this plane was somehow nursed back to base and somehow repaired later.





AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 07/11/03 03:05PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/11/03 03:06PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 07/11/0303:07PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:11 PM
Interesting unknown fact of Kozhedub's biography:
He shot down 2 P-51 over Berlin, but his regiment's commander ordered to forgot these kills.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:28 PM
SA22 wrote:
- USAF was beaten in Korea, and it doesn't matter what
- plane was the best. The best plane is one that is
- controlled by best pilot.
-
-

Interesting.

Is that why the UN Airforce roamed freely over NK? Why did the MiGs run for the Chinese side of the Yalu if they had the UNAF beaten?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
07-11-2003, 08:34 PM
Kohzedub was apparently jumped by a couple of '51s who mistook him for something else - this is his story anyway. I don't know if the american pilots survived but I do know the losses were acknowleged by the US.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:43 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Is that why the UN Airforce roamed freely over NK?
- Why did the MiGs run for the Chinese side of the
- Yalu if they had the UNAF beaten?
-

Milo,

UN side had such numerical superiority and access to a theater of operations (thanks to US carriers and bases in Japan) - the other side had no chance for air dominance over Korea.
The best they could hope for (and, by the way, had achieved) - to prevent WWII style daytime precision bombing by USAF. UN side did not "roamed freely" - they were forced to conduct very limited CAS operations under very heavy fighter cover and suffered heavy losses despite of those advantages.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:44 PM
Seems like there is enough interest to get oleg to make a korean war sim. How cool would it be to fly the early jets online. I hope it happens!!!

http://www.migman.com/about/pics/MiG-15.jpg


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 08:50 PM
One American pilot was killed, the other rescued by Russian. He was sure - their planes were shot down by "Red nosed Fw190"...

Kohzedub didn't know those plane were American until he saw the white stars on a second burning Mustang. He felt terrible about the shooting Allied planes, but those thing happen in the war. Pokryshkin's first kill was Soviet Su-2.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 09:25 PM
Bogun wrote
- In all, I believe, German methodology of crediting
- points for "air victory" is much more fair to pilots
- - if enemy plane is diverted from continuing its
- mission - it is victory in "my book" even if this
- plane was somehow nursed back to base and somehow
- repaired later

I agree and this is one of the reason I have always disliked discussions about kill tallies. Unless your fighting a pure attrition war the most important thing is not allowing your enemy to complete his mission. You don't have to shoot him down to do this. That is one of the things I dislike about the mission success/fail criteria in Il-2. I can attack a formation of bombers and damage them enough to jettison their weapons and abort their mission, yet the mission is only a success if I shot them down. IRL I might not have claimed a kill, but my mission was certainly a success.


HellToupee wrote:
- ild prefer the migs arment jus a few hits to down a
- plane, the war showed that 20mm or bigger was needed
- to be effective in fighter vs fighter combat.

Actually it was shown that you needed fire volume as much as you needed anything else. The high speed nature of the new jet vs jet combat made it important to put the maximum amount of rounds on target at any given instant because of the new difficulties of lead and closure rates due to higher speeds than previously experienced. I agree the .50 cal was not as capable of knocking a jet down as the 23mm and 37mm rounds, but you had a much better chance of hitting your target. That is why as Bogun pointed out earlier the Bis variant had higher rate of fire NR 23mm cannons. These cannons in fact had a higher ROF than the Sabres .50's but could still not equal the volume of fire coming out of the Sabre's 6 guns. These factors are the direct reasons why the Vulcan cannon was developed and why the radar gunsight and 6 50's of the Sabre gave it a distinct advantage in aerial gunnery at the time.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 09:26 PM
Bogun, I base nearly everything I say about "who won the air war " on admitted losses by the two sides, not claims.

As we both agree, the Soviets claiming what they felt was a "write off" resulted in the gross disparity of what they claim and what the UN says it lost.

US pilots have never been able, legally, to claim a plane that flew away as a "write off". "Probables" and "damaged" did not go into their victory columns.

B-29's roamed freely over NK while there were still targets needing precision bombing. The MiG did not make an appearance until the B-29 began area bombing airfields south of the Yalu to deny use. A case could be made that the B-29's had ceased operations, and didn't start the airfield denial until the enemy airforce once again became a threat (appearance of the MiG).

They were quickly forced to fly these missions at night. But they were not precision bombing, unless plastering an empty airfield to deny its use is precision bombing.

I've got a figure somewhere, but for most of the conflict, esp up till 1953, the MiGs enjoyed numerical supremacy. An overwhelming number of MiG-Sabre encounters favored the MiG in numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by limited CAS. The UN flew tremendous numbers of CAS missions. All agree it was what kept the UN in the game faced with the Chinese army's numerical superiority. Fear of discovery kept Soviet flown MiGs from getting too near the front lines. The main enemy was flak.

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 05:40 AM
I bought a book today titled "Korean Air War" by Robert F. Dorr and Warrent Thompson. Thompson is also the author of "MiG Alley: Sabres versus MiGs over Korea."


Bogun, Thompson gives some insight into those "106" missing planes on October 23, 1951. On page 92 he states, "On 23 October 1951, as B-29 Superfortresses went after targets in North Korea, 100 MiGs engaged and boxed in 34 Sabres of the screening force. The Sabres shot down two MiGs, but this was no comfort to eight Superfort crews arrayed in three fligts, escrted bt 55 Thunderjets. No fewer than 50 MiGs swarmed over this bomber force."

So, according to a very respected Korean War historian, there were up to 150 MiGs engaged on 23 October 1951, not 44.

http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/kaw.jpg




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/LT150.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 07:09 AM
dose it say where he gets his numbers from pilot stories or russian records?

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg