PDA

View Full Version : Migs against Sabres - memoirs of Soviet Ace.



crazyivan1970
06-15-2006, 03:47 PM
Just a few quotes from the book that i am currently reading.
About the book:
Written by Evgeniy Pepelyaev, commander of 196th fighter regiment in N. Korea. Those who read russian can read the book here: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/pepelyaev_eg/index.html Those who does not, try online translators http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And as i have time, i`ll translate some to my best abilities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, here it goes:

******************************************

As i was a part of the encounters between Mig-15/15bis and F-86 Fighters i have all rights to analyze their performance differences and talk about abilities of Mig-15/15BIS versus F-86 Sabre.
In my opinion Mig-15bis had slight advantage over F-86 in vertical maneuvers, ceiling and weapons, but was slightly inferior in horizontal maneuver, critical speeds and range.
Therefore, critical speed of Mig15bis was 0,92 œ, after that plane would nose over, vibrate and wouldn€t respond to controls, While F-86 had critical speed of 0,95 œ.
Weapons:
Mig15bis 3 cannons (37mm and 2x23mm). Gun sight - half-automatic. F-86 had 6 machine guns caliber 12,6-mm, automatic gun sight and range meter.
Vertical speed and ceiling:
Mig-15bis 16,000m and its vertical speed was a little higher then F-86. Vertical speed of F-86 was almost equal to 7000 м then it would be less the Migs. Ceiling for F-86 was 15,000m. In horizontal maneuver Mig-15 was weaker then F-86. F-86 was able to turn tighter (good mechanics and hydraulics) Range was 1200km longer for F-86. (*** Not sure about this statement, maybe range was 1200k, maybe he meant 1200km longer)
In comparison with Sabre, Migs biggest disadvantage was bad horizontal aerodynamics (Sliding from side to side)this characteristic is necessary in combat when you shoot at enemy plane or when enemy shoots at you. Meaning ability to slide sideways. Cause of bad "sliding" for Mig was the fact that it had aerodynamic "knifes" build into the wing console, which improved stability on low and high speeds, especially high speeds. In the sane time Sabre, instead of those "knifes" had slots in the front surface of the wing, which did not affect sliding abilities of the plane, but significantly increased stability.
Electronics, navigation and pilots instruments were more modern on F-86 then on Mig-15bis.
Comparing combat characteristic of these two planes i can say that they are very close. Success in combat would depend on individual skills and courage of the pilots, choice of maneuver and tactics, along with cooperation of the group.
First information about aerial combat between Mig-15 and F-86 we received on the training base from participants of the the first encounters Lt. Naumenko from 29th GIAP and LtC. Kolyadin from 151st division.
I must say, that information that they shared with our 196 GIAP about American aviation, was ,if i put it nicely, not really honest one. They were very subjective, especially talking about combat itself. They downgraded overall performance and abilities of American pilots. Based on their opinions F-86 was inferior to Mig-15, needless to say F-80 and F-84 were clearly inferior to Migs. These guys didn€t speak highly about American pilots either.
1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
2)Not aggressive.
3)Flying in small groups.
4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun.
Bottom line: Out of all possible maneuvers they recommended crossing loop (Not sure how to translate it, diagonal loop maybe) when fighting F-86 Sabre.

After first fights with Americans we realized that American VVS are in control of the air. They intensively bomb day and night, small groups of F-80s and F-84s, single or groups of B-29s with escorts of F-86s. They destroy supply lines, slow down ground forces. Action of F-80s and F-84s are under cover of small groups of F-86, which are patrolling on 7-8km altitude. Our opinion radically changed from what was formed in previous meetings. We were facing well trained and organized crews on F-86s fighters, who were flying in any conditions.
I can assure you that group combat between Migs and Sabres were on equal terms. I must say that success of the first encounters was not for our side, It belonged to Sabre pilots. But starting from July 1951 with arrival of Mig-15bis tables turned and quiet often encounters would end with Migs beating out Sabres from the area they were patrolling, which meant that we could leave combat without losses.

crazyivan1970
06-15-2006, 03:47 PM
Just a few quotes from the book that i am currently reading.
About the book:
Written by Evgeniy Pepelyaev, commander of 196th fighter regiment in N. Korea. Those who read russian can read the book here: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/pepelyaev_eg/index.html Those who does not, try online translators http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And as i have time, i`ll translate some to my best abilities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, here it goes:

******************************************

As i was a part of the encounters between Mig-15/15bis and F-86 Fighters i have all rights to analyze their performance differences and talk about abilities of Mig-15/15BIS versus F-86 Sabre.
In my opinion Mig-15bis had slight advantage over F-86 in vertical maneuvers, ceiling and weapons, but was slightly inferior in horizontal maneuver, critical speeds and range.
Therefore, critical speed of Mig15bis was 0,92 œ, after that plane would nose over, vibrate and wouldn€t respond to controls, While F-86 had critical speed of 0,95 œ.
Weapons:
Mig15bis 3 cannons (37mm and 2x23mm). Gun sight - half-automatic. F-86 had 6 machine guns caliber 12,6-mm, automatic gun sight and range meter.
Vertical speed and ceiling:
Mig-15bis 16,000m and its vertical speed was a little higher then F-86. Vertical speed of F-86 was almost equal to 7000 м then it would be less the Migs. Ceiling for F-86 was 15,000m. In horizontal maneuver Mig-15 was weaker then F-86. F-86 was able to turn tighter (good mechanics and hydraulics) Range was 1200km longer for F-86. (*** Not sure about this statement, maybe range was 1200k, maybe he meant 1200km longer)
In comparison with Sabre, Migs biggest disadvantage was bad horizontal aerodynamics (Sliding from side to side)this characteristic is necessary in combat when you shoot at enemy plane or when enemy shoots at you. Meaning ability to slide sideways. Cause of bad "sliding" for Mig was the fact that it had aerodynamic "knifes" build into the wing console, which improved stability on low and high speeds, especially high speeds. In the sane time Sabre, instead of those "knifes" had slots in the front surface of the wing, which did not affect sliding abilities of the plane, but significantly increased stability.
Electronics, navigation and pilots instruments were more modern on F-86 then on Mig-15bis.
Comparing combat characteristic of these two planes i can say that they are very close. Success in combat would depend on individual skills and courage of the pilots, choice of maneuver and tactics, along with cooperation of the group.
First information about aerial combat between Mig-15 and F-86 we received on the training base from participants of the the first encounters Lt. Naumenko from 29th GIAP and LtC. Kolyadin from 151st division.
I must say, that information that they shared with our 196 GIAP about American aviation, was ,if i put it nicely, not really honest one. They were very subjective, especially talking about combat itself. They downgraded overall performance and abilities of American pilots. Based on their opinions F-86 was inferior to Mig-15, needless to say F-80 and F-84 were clearly inferior to Migs. These guys didn€t speak highly about American pilots either.
1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
2)Not aggressive.
3)Flying in small groups.
4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun.
Bottom line: Out of all possible maneuvers they recommended crossing loop (Not sure how to translate it, diagonal loop maybe) when fighting F-86 Sabre.

After first fights with Americans we realized that American VVS are in control of the air. They intensively bomb day and night, small groups of F-80s and F-84s, single or groups of B-29s with escorts of F-86s. They destroy supply lines, slow down ground forces. Action of F-80s and F-84s are under cover of small groups of F-86, which are patrolling on 7-8km altitude. Our opinion radically changed from what was formed in previous meetings. We were facing well trained and organized crews on F-86s fighters, who were flying in any conditions.
I can assure you that group combat between Migs and Sabres were on equal terms. I must say that success of the first encounters was not for our side, It belonged to Sabre pilots. But starting from July 1951 with arrival of Mig-15bis tables turned and quiet often encounters would end with Migs beating out Sabres from the area they were patrolling, which meant that we could leave combat without losses.

ytareh
06-15-2006, 04:07 PM
This kind of stuff is always interesting!That Mig 15 was a beautiful plane.i got a book (Mig Dynasty)recently which has all colour pictures of Migs (unfortunately only post WW2-I was hoping for some in game ones)The 37mm cannon looks HUGE-like you could almost put your fist in it!

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 04:14 PM
There were different model Sabres in Korean conflict that maybe made judging hard for pilots
who on knew they faced Sabres. I don't have text with me now but IIRC the E was the better
just as the bis was the better MiG-15. But... what does bis stand for?

Ivan, you ever played Rowan's MiG Alley Ace (1999 ed)? Not for the campaign (patched since
but I never did, was convalescent till IL2 demo and never went back) but the single mission
flying. Campaign was buggy but the flying was nice for pre-IL2 combat sim, and the view has
much going for it except ground but then it ran well on my 300mz K6-2 with Voodoo3 so hey!
I expect it would either not run now or be smooth as glass.

crazyivan1970
06-15-2006, 04:19 PM
@Gunz

MiG-15 : Single-seat jet fighter. The first production version.
MiG-15bis : Improved single-seat fighter version.

What is the actual difference between the two... i gotta look it up. I would assume that bis was improved in some areas over first production. They used that abbriviation even on I-153.... there was I-153...and I-153bis - improved version.

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 04:33 PM
Here is review of Rowan MA:

http://www.combatsim.com/proddata/migalley/migalley.htm

click link for Designers Notes, I was wrong in that latest Sabre they used is F model.
Game manual and data do have specifics on all models again IIRC because perhaps it was
from forum discussions I remember reading much, the developers were somewhat interactive.

First big lesson for me was the difference swept wings make in handling. Not fun when
you are used to straight or nearly so wings. Takes much more care, you have less AOA to
play with kind of feel. I used to know those terms better but that was the beginning of
medical trouble for me and it's a bit cloudy since except for having fun part.

luftluuver
06-15-2006, 04:37 PM
Max, if you want cheap, as in $$$, obtain some Squadron/Signal InAction books (MiG-15 > #1116). They are not perfect but will give you the basics. S/S also have WalkAround pictorial books.

Further reading from the Soviet viewpoint of the Korean conflict, http://www.korean-war.com/Russia/RussianViewTranslation.html

crazyivan1970
06-15-2006, 04:42 PM
Interesting link there luft, thanks.

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 05:03 PM
Just from the TOC that is one nice link there Luft! Bookmarked!

I still have my MA CD but dunno where the manual is. Probably in a box but maybe jammed in my
one remaining bookshelf unit. Honest, they did a nice job researching that sim. I read through
the interview and ground handling down to tires is there. Weather, changing day to day with
full 3D wind effects and yes it is hard to land even without crosswind which is possible.

A good sim is like a playable book.

Squadron-Signal. And not priced like Jane's. Trouble is people get too attached to too few
numbers and think they apply wherever is convenient. But I still like the numbers and moreso
the details what guns, ammo, engine(s) and the like.

alert_1
06-16-2006, 05:24 AM
MiG 15 had RD45 engine (Rolls Royce Nene copy), MiF15bis had more powerful VK1 engine with afterburner. Dont forger taht teh Sabres mentioned are probably F86A, there were later F86F (much better)

mandrill7
06-16-2006, 06:13 AM
"bis" = "B"

"Bis" is simply the French word for "B". No idea why it's translated like that.

Grendel-B
06-16-2006, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

Cause of bad "sliding" for Mig was the fact that it had aerodynamic "knifes" build into the wing console, which improved stability on low and high speeds, especially high speeds. In the sane time Sabre, instead of those "knifes" had slots in the front surface of the wing, which did not affect sliding abilities of the plane, but significantly increased stability.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw F-86 Sabre had identical leading edge wing slats to the Messerschmitt 109. Identical mechanical, automatic slats.

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2006, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
MiG 15 had RD45 engine (Rolls Royce Nene copy), MiF15bis had more powerful VK1 engine with afterburner. Dont forger taht teh Sabres mentioned are probably F86A, there were later F86F (much better) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the MiG-15 had no afterburner, even the 15bis not.
nevertheless, the main diffrence was the more powerfull engine between the 15 and 15bis , and sure some internal improvemtns.
the MiG-17 introduced an afterburnern.

ojcar1971
06-16-2006, 07:03 AM
Have you try the korean campaings for SFP1? They are awesome!. And not only sabre and MIG 15. Also F9F Panther, F-80, F-84, F-51, La-11, Skyrider, F4U, Meteor...
Very very good 3º party add ons

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2006, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grendel-B:
,
Btw F-86 Sabre had identical leading edge wing slats to the Messerschmitt 109. Identical mechanical, automatic slats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-86A and E yes , the koreantime F-86F not, it had fences.

luftluuver
06-16-2006, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
MiG 15 had RD45 engine (Rolls Royce Nene copy), MiF15bis had more powerful VK1 engine with afterburner. Dont forger taht teh Sabres mentioned are probably F86A, there were later F86F (much better) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry but the MiG-17 was the first to get an AB, the VK-1F. The VK-1(VictorKlimov-1) had an enlarged cumbustion chambers, turbine blades and tail pipe over what the Nene had. An ongoing weight reduction program had the MiG-15bis some 198lb/89kg lighter than the MiG-15.

The American also used some (60) Canadair produced Sabres.

F/L Omer Levesque was the first CW pilot to get a confirmed MiG kill on Mar. 31 1951. He was in a Sabre. F/L EA Glover was the top Canadian MiG killer with 3 claims. He had been a POW in WW2 when his Typhoon had been shot down flak on May 19 1943 near St Omer.

ps. Sorry Frankboy for duplicating your post. You posted while I was composing my post.

Badsight-
06-16-2006, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
F-86A and E yes , the koreantime F-86F not, it had fences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the F Saber was introduced in 52 wasnt it ? it was the revised wing model , bigger at the fuselarge especially

& before the F model , the E introduced the all moving tail section , much more authority in the dive

as for the thread starters post , if anyone is going to be able to say for sure who had the turning advantage between the two - its Evgeniy Pepelyaev . he was the leading russian mig pilot of that war

modern owners of both A/C know each other , & on one occasion at least they have swopped planes & flowen each others jet . the verdict i read was that the Saber is much more stable & forgiving to the pilot than the responsive Mig-15

luftluuver
06-16-2006, 07:13 AM
One thing I cam across was that the F-86A had an elevator and the F-86E had a 'flying' stab.

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2006, 07:21 AM
yep, the performance and flight charachteristica of the F-86 Sabre changed dramaticly from the first F-86A over the F-86E to the F-86F..............

so far i read the F-86F was even able to match the MiG15bis high alt combat performance.

the most neg point of the Sabre was, well.......... its armament http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
F-86H got later 4x20mm canons, beside some other main changes.
btw there were some F-86F with 20mm canons in test use during Korea spring 1953, Project "Gunval"

first combat with F-86F with the new "6-3" solid leading edge wing was in august 1952 AFAIK. the first deliverd F-86F had still the leading-edge slats , delivered to Korea in July 1952

HellToupee
06-16-2006, 07:28 AM
didnt aussie built sabres have 30mm aden cannon arment and a avon engine

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2006, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
didnt aussie built sabres have 30mm aden cannon arment and a avon engine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

correct
as always baugher gives you a lot to read http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p86.html)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight-
06-16-2006, 07:56 AM
if its a Cannon Saber you want - then you need to go fly for the Navy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

woofiedog
06-16-2006, 08:00 AM
A few links:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_314.shtml

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/korean_war/usaf_ksites_kore...an_ksites_bases.html (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/korean_war/usaf_ksites_korea/korean_ksites_bases.html)

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/korean_war/usaf_organizatio...nizations_korea.html (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/korean_war/usaf_organizations_korea/usaf_organizations_korea.html)

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm...oreanwartimeline.htm (http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usni.org%2Ffrees tuff%2Fkoreanwartimeline.htm)

http://jpgleize.club.fr/aces/korrus.htm

http://jpgleize.club.fr/aces/korea.htm

http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/korurs.htm

http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/postw2mj.htm

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/SovietAces.html

Corsair_Fanatic
06-16-2006, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
if its a Cannon Saber you want - then you need to go fly for the Navy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

O RLY? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://pics.livejournal.com/laptop_mechanic/pic/0003srp1

F-86H Saber. Here's an FJ-4B for comparison:

http://pics.livejournal.com/laptop_mechanic/pic/0003w6da

flakwagen
06-16-2006, 09:28 AM
Interesting stuff. Last year I read Red Wings Over The Yalu. It is very informative- I learned a lot about the Russian contribution to the Korean War on the Red side. The book covers the PLAAF from its early inception until 1953.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585443409/sr=8-1/qid=...154?%5Fencoding=UTF8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585443409/sr=8-1/qid=1150471357/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6550338-4075154?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

My grandfather flew F9F Panther fighter bombers for most of the war. He completed sixty missions, which qualified him to transfer to a mixed-service F86 fighter unit. Unfortunately the war ended two weeks before he was scheduled to fly his first sortee. He still flew on patrols close to the border. They could see row on row of MiG-15s on Red airfields. Not being able to attack them really ticked him off!

Flak

Kocur_
06-16-2006, 10:10 AM
Differences between MiG-15 and MiG-15 bis:
- more powerful VK-1 engine,
- strenghtened wing construction,
- hydraulic ailerons booster,
- a bit larger diameter of rear fuselage,
- horizontal stab a bit lower,
- air brakes enlarged to 0,25m^2 each and pivoted 22deg off vertical
- landing light removed from airintake to under left wing
- flare louncher moved bit lower
- NR-23 instead of NS-23, N-37 instead NS-37 (apart from initial series').

..............................MiG-15........MiG-15bis
empty weight...............3382kg........3681kg
t/o weight clean.........4806kg........5044kg
weight w/drop tanks.....5260kg........5574kg
top speed sealevel......1050kmh.......1076kmh
top speed 3km...........1043kmh.......1044kmh
service ceiling............15200m........15500m
ROC sealevel.............42m/s.........46m/s
time to 5km...............2,3m.........1,95
fuel in forward tank.....1250dm^3......1250dm^3
fuel in aft tank...........210dm^3.......160dm^3
total internal.............1460dm^3......1410dm^3
drop tanks...............2 x 250dm^3.....2 x 300dm^3
range on internal fuel...1420km........1330km
range w/drop tanks........1920km........1976km
time of flight...............3,23h.........2,95h
t/o run.....................600m..........504m
landing.....................710m..........880.

MiG-15 weights in kg:
forward fuselage......1266
rear fuselage...........467
engine..................808
wings...................841
pilot....................97
NS-37 ammo............54
NS-23 ammo............63
internal fuel..........1210
fuel in drop tanks....420
drop tanks..............34

Warning: be sure to ingore above info, for it must be all wrong, since I took it from the same book, that says MiG-3U did not exist in any form until 1943.

Tipo_Man
06-16-2006, 10:12 AM
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...

Just trying be provocative.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


In fact it's a very good book.
You can realize airwar is not only shooting, plane performance and kill ratio, but also
pilot psychology, fear, tactics etc.
The author speaks alot about his mistakes, about losses in his regiment
You can feel the respect he has towards the enemy.
He nowhere says that MiG-15 was the best plane, or that russians were better pilots.

I'm yet to find such a book from "the other side". It would be quite an interesting read.

Blutarski2004
06-16-2006, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just a few quotes from the book that i am currently reading.
About the book:
Written by Evgeniy Pepelyaev, commander of 196th fighter regiment in N. Korea. Those who read russian can read the book here: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/pepelyaev_eg/index.html Those who does not, try online translators http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And as i have time, i`ll translate some to my best abilities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ivan,

Thanks for taking the time to trqnslate and post that very interesting excerpt from the Pepelyaev book.

I'm, of course, waiting to see how long it will be before some "expert" posts to say that it's just anecdotal personal opinion of Pepelyaev, so what does he know, etc, etc.

It just won't be the Ubizoo until that happens.

;-]

Fork-N-spoon
06-16-2006, 02:02 PM
The F-86 could go supersonic in a dive with only a moderate and manageable tendency to nose-up, although below 25,000 feet there was a tendency to roll which made it unwise to stay supersonic for very long. Production Sabres were limited to Mach 0.95 below 25,000 feet for safety reasons because of this roll tendency.

The Mig-15 was limited to mach .92 and I believe that later models incorporated automatic airbrakes that opened to prevent the Mig-15 from exceeding its critical mach.

horseback
06-16-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...

Just trying be provocative.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

In fact it's a very good book.
You can realize airwar is not only shooting, plane performance and kill ratio, but also
pilot psychology, fear, tactics etc.
The author speaks alot about his mistakes, about losses in his regiment
You can feel the respect he has towards the enemy.
He nowhere says that MiG-15 was the best plane, or that russians were better pilots.

I'm yet to find such a book from "the other side". It would be quite an interesting read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You have to remember that the Soviet pilots constituted a small minority of the MiG drivers that the Americans faced. There were lots more Korean and Chinese pilots flying MiGs, and they were the opponents most likely to let their guards down and let the Yanks catch them in a position of inferiority.

These guys were generally taken down with near impunity, and from what I've read of Soviet participation, the Chinese and North Koreans were occasionally used as bait to get the Americans too busy to notice the second group moving over them...

Since the MiGs all had similar markings, there was no way to determine what nationality pilot you were facing unless you got a good look at his face after he'd hit his 'chute.

As a result, the occasional 'honcho' (USAF period slang for 'expert'-I believe that it's taken from the Japanese language) you encountered was an even nastier surprise than usual, and I expect that the Russians were by far the most likely opponents to be honchos. From an American pilot's perspective, you would see a lot of very bad pilots and the occasional good one, or more likely, have a lot of easy kills and one or two tough engagements with a 'squad of honchos' where you were lucky to get away in one piece.

And because you were used to poor opposition, the shock of dealing with someone near-equal or better than you would give them a significant advantage.

The better scoring US outfits may not have had as many tangles with the Soviets because they didn't allow themselves to be 'bushwhacked' as easily (you don't engage an aware and alert enemy of equal strength unless you must-when the stakes include your life, you don't pick a fight until you hold as many cards as possible). The account on Soviet operations over Korea indicates that they specialized against lower altitude fighter-bombers rather than going after the high alt sweeps along the Yalu (the MiG Alley of legend). Many US pilots had a few easy kills and never encountered any particularly skilled opponents. Lots more had lots of combat hours and never got into position to fire on the enemy at all.

On this side, the participation of Russian or other European Eastern Bloc pilots was suspected, but never admitted until about the time the Soviet Union broke up, so memoirs written in the late fifties or early sixties could speculate about the occasional 'blonde Korean' they saw, but no one came out and said that there were definitely Russian units flying ops over Korea until the last 10-15 years. Generally, it was thought that individual Russians were sometimes flying with North Korean & Chinese units as flight leaders or advisers.

But in any case, the Soviet flown MiGs constituted a minority of the MiGs faced by US/UN pilots over Korea. Their kill/loss ratios could be higher for their units, and still not greatly affect the overall kill/loss ratio for the US/UN forces. American pilots who faced them would think of them as the exception rather than the norm.

cheers

horseback

F6_Ace
06-16-2006, 02:59 PM
Does it say anything in his book about his Russian aircraft being vastly superior?

Oh sorry, he knew real life..Not what we know.

SkyChimp
06-16-2006, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
Interesting stuff. Last year I read Red Wings Over The Yalu. It is very informative- I learned a lot about the Russian contribution to the Korean War on the Red side. The book covers the PLAAF from its early inception until 1953.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585443409/sr=8-1/qid=...154?%5Fencoding=UTF8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585443409/sr=8-1/qid=1150471357/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6550338-4075154?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

My grandfather flew F9F Panther fighter bombers for most of the war. He completed sixty missions, which qualified him to transfer to a mixed-service F86 fighter unit. Unfortunately the war ended two weeks before he was scheduled to fly his first sortee. He still flew on patrols close to the border. They could see row on row of MiG-15s on Red airfields. Not being able to attack them really ticked him off!

Flak </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that they were on Red airfields didn't stop them from being attacked. They were attacked while sitting on occassion. Fights over red airfields happened with frequency and contributed significantly to the very lopsided kill:loss ratio of 1953. For a good read, try "MiG-15 To Freedom" by No ***-Sok who describes the Sabres booming over their airfields waiting for MiG to either try and take off or land.

SkyChimp
06-16-2006, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
You have to remember that the Soviet pilots constituted a small minority of the MiG drivers that the Americans faced.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From about mid 1951 to about mid 1952 Soviets flew the principal portion of MiG sorties against the Americans.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There were lots more Korean and Chinese pilots flying MiGs,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lots of Chinese, but hardly any North Koreans. Kim Il Sung placed great restrictions on NK MiGs flying combat sorties in the hopes of saving enough planes to be the core of his NK air force.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Since the MiGs all had similar markings, there was no way to determine what nationality pilot you were facing unless you got a good look at his face after he'd hit his 'chute.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
NKoreans, when they flew, flew with NK emblems. Soviets flew with NK emblems. But the Chinese flew as Chinese and their planes carried Chinese markings.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
On this side, the participation of Russian or other European Eastern Bloc pilots was suspected, but never admitted until about the time the Soviet Union broke up, so memoirs written in the late fifties or early sixties could speculate about the occasional 'blonde Korean' they saw, but no one came out and said that there were definitely Russian units flying ops over Korea until the last 10-15 years.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No ***-Suk advised the Americans after he defected with his MiG in 1953 that Soviets were flying combat sorties. He was trained by them. The US kept that fact quiet because the US was regularly flying combat sorties over China that were prohibited.

SkyChimp
06-16-2006, 07:20 PM
Not to take anything away from the MiG-15, it was one of the best two fighters in the world in the early 50s. But Chuck Yeager flew a MiG-15bis and said of the MiG, "Man, that thing is a flying booby trap" and "Flying the MiG was the most demanding situtation I ever faced. It's a quirkly planes that's killed a lot of pilots." In a full power dive from 48,000 feet the plane never broke mach .98, and the controls were totaly non-responsive.

No ***-Sok said "The MiG-15 was good, but hardly the superfighter that should strike terror in the heart of the west." He also stated that he was baffled when he came to the US with the perception that the MiG was a better plane than the F-86. He called those assertions "preposterous" and stated he suspected they were rumors propagated by the defense industry in order to win contracts to build better planes.

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. If you're dumb enough to equate 'planes' with F-86's. Provacative enough?

LEXX_Luthor
06-16-2006, 10:03 PM
<span class="ev_code_yellow">ytareh</span>::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This kind of stuff is always interesting!That Mig 15 was a beautiful plane.i got a book (Mig Dynasty)recently which has all colour pictures of Migs (unfortunately only post WW2-I was hoping for some in game ones)The 37mm cannon looks HUGE-like you could almost put your fist in it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are several alternatives for MiG-3 and other wartime MiGs...

#1 ~&gt; http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Avia/Mig3/index.htm
Online book, very long, in Russian. Its slow loading website, and Babelfish won't translate entire pages, so you have to translate piece by piece. Or, crazyivan can translate - for The Community. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif Its a LONG book, and very very deep....and very slow loading pages in web browser.

#2 ~&gt; http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html
Worlds' largest, and only, MiG-3 website.


#3 goto http://www.amazon.com and get Yefim Gordon's...
Mikoyan's Piston-Engined Fighters : Red Star Volume 13 (Red Star)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1857801601.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_V66247854_.jpg



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

Although irrelevant on a dogfight shooter webboard, for its designed purpose as strategic interceptor with massive cannon, the -15 was the most successful, forcing B-29s escorted by F-86s from the daytime sky. Granted, for escorting and protecting low level strikes, the F-86 seemed to be equally successful.


SkyChimp:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No ***-Sok said "The MiG-15 was good, but hardly the superfighter that should strike terror in the heart of the west." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It struck terror among SAC crews. It took NAVY two seat Skynights to defeat the MiGs, at night, protecting B-29s, with some help from two seat F-94s.

I think I finally found out what a "mig trap" is...a Russian PDF file that I can't find now, it described attempts to engage the night fighters, the MiGs would pair up, under ground control, and hope a F-3D or F-94 would track it and attack it, with the other MiG guided in to take out this night figther. A few US night fighters were lost this way, but overall, I guess the MiGs being distracted seemed to have proven enough so the B-29s survived a bit better at night.

flakwagen
06-17-2006, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

The fact that they were on Red airfields didn't stop them from being attacked. They were attacked while sitting on occassion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg your pardon. If he had attacked them, he would've been court martialed and put in Leavenworth. The truce would've been called off and the attack would've restarted the war. Reread my post.

Ratsack
06-17-2006, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
...But Chuck Yeager flew a MiG-15bis and said of the MiG, "Man, that thing is a flying booby trap" .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I met Chuck Yeager at Temorra air show a couple of years ago. He was there as a guest of his friend and local Aussie businessman, [EDIT: SEE BELOW]**** Smith, for one of the flying days at the museum. Talk about a treat! I wish I'd known he was going to be there: I'd have had my copy of Winged Rocketry with me and turned autograph hound in a flash.

Anyway, Yeager was prevailed upon to give a talk to the crowd about some of his experiences, and he specifically mentioned that 'flying boobytrap' quote about the MiG-15. He went on to explain that what he was getting at was that the MiG, like the early Sabres, had an elevator. He continued that you really need if you want control in transonic flight is a slab (or flying) elevator, as was later fitted to the Sabres. He then went on to say that he regarded this as one of the single most important aerodynamic advances made in the US during the period 1945-9.


Not an exact quote, but that was the general intent of the man.


cheers,
Ratsack

PS - he also said that when he reached mandatory retirement age, the air force asked him if he'd like to do some test flying as a consultant. He said he only asked if he had to pay for his own fuel!

[RE: EDIT] J*E*S*U*S -WEPT!!!! What is it with the net nanny program on this site?! The guy€s a successful businessman and former head of an Australian Commonwealth aviation safety organization, and his preferred familiar form of his first name just happens to be same as what some people might call their todger! Get REAL! It€s a common familiar form of Richard, pherphucksache!! Can we please have software updated to something a little more sophisticated?!!!

luftluuver
06-17-2006, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

The fact that they were on Red airfields didn't stop them from being attacked. They were attacked while sitting on occassion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg your pardon. If he had attacked them, he would've been court martialed and put in Leavenworth. The truce would've been called off and the attack would've restarted the war. Reread my post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You is wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Theoretically the Yalu was not to be crossed by it certainly was before the truce.

flakwagen
06-17-2006, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Theoretically the Yalu was not to be crossed by it certainly was before the truce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you speak the English?! Go back and read it again. The war ended 2 weeks before he was to fly combat air patrols. So he flew AFTER the truce.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-17-2006, 07:51 AM
Now Im certain that the new stand alone title being worked on by Ilya "Luthier" Shevchenko and Vadim "Starshoy" Kolosov will take place in Korea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://rrgstudios.com/img/UNK/logo.jpg

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:

I beg your pardon. If he had attacked them, he would've been court martialed and put in Leavenworth. The truce would've been called off and the attack would've restarted the war. Reread my post.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, I'm talking about during the war.

The "Manchurian Sanctuary" was being commonly violated as early as early 1952. Attacks on MiGs over Red airfields at Antung contributed heavily to the skewed kill:loss ratio enjoyed by the Americans. There are several recorded attacks on parked planes on Manchurian airfields, and at least one on a Russian airfield.

As for truce violations, the NKs regularly violated the terms of the truce receiving new MiG-15s from China well after the armistice. Even my father, a US Army artillery officer, engaged in artillery duels with the NK and Chinese after the start of the cease fire.

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I think I finally found out what a "mig trap" is...a Russian PDF file that I can't find now, it described attempts to engage the night fighters, the MiGs would pair up, under ground control, and hope a F-3D or F-94 would track it and attack it, with the other MiG guided in to take out this night figther. A few US night fighters were lost this way, but overall, I guess the MiGs being distracted seemed to have proven enough so the B-29s survived a bit better at night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were only 7 F3Ds lost during the whole of the war. Only one appears to have been possibly lost during an encounter with enemy night fighters. There were 19 F-94s lost, 2 due to collisions with unknown aircraft, 1 due to a collision with a PO-2. The vast majority of US jet nightfighter losses were due to landing accidents and fuel starvation.

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:

Do you speak the English?! Go back and read it again. The war ended 2 weeks before he was to fly combat air patrols. So he flew AFTER the truce.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Flakwagen, take it easy.

BTW, the war never officially ended. And truce violation have been rife to this day.

luftluuver
06-17-2006, 08:24 AM
LEXX, http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm

luftluuver
06-17-2006, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Theoretically the Yalu was not to be crossed by it certainly was before the truce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you speak the English?! Go back and read it again. The war ended 2 weeks before he was to fly combat air patrols. So he flew AFTER the truce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Looks like you don't speak the English. Should be comprehend English. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If you are capable of comprehending English, read what I said again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so it sinks in.

flakwagen
06-17-2006, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

If you are capable of comprehending English, read what I said again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so it sinks in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to argue about it anymore. But I will say that I trust the words of someone who was there more than you or whomever else cares to chip in. He said they weren't allowed to attack, and that doing so would've ended his career at the very least.

I hope you'll understand why I trust his word more than yours. If you know about F86 units that flew into Chinese air space after the truce and attacked PLAAF bases, I'd like to hear about it.

Flak

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

If you are capable of comprehending English, read what I said again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so it sinks in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to argue about it anymore. But I will say that I trust the words of someone who was there more than you or whomever else cares to chip in. He said they weren't allowed to attack, and that doing so would've ended his career at the very least.

I hope you'll understand why I trust his word more than yours. If you know about F86 units that flew into Chinese air space after the truce and attacked PLAAF bases, I'd like to hear about it.

Flak </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just explained that I was talking about during the war, not after. I think the other poster was, too.

Sergio_101
06-17-2006, 03:17 PM
PDRK has never ended the war.
Look up "Operation Paul Bunyon"
on Google or Yahoo.
Operation Paul Bunyon was pretty scary stuff.
It was very nearly the end of the PDRK.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kelln...6safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kellnet.com/veterans/images/panspec2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.kellnet.com/veterans/panspec2.htm&h=340&w=458&sz=79&tbnid=kJUSS8HJ34ifnM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=125&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Operation%2BPaul%2BBunyon%2522%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3D G)

Sergio

luftluuver
06-17-2006, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

I'm not going to argue about it anymore. But I will say that I trust the words of someone who was there more than you or whomever else cares to chip in. He said they weren't allowed to attack, and that doing so would've ended his career at the very least.

I hope you'll understand why I trust his word more than yours. If you know about F86 units that flew into Chinese air space after the truce and attacked PLAAF bases, I'd like to hear about it.

Flak </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just explained that I was talking about during the war, not after. I think the other poster was, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Be sure SkyChimp. flakwagen complained about my 'speaking Englisih' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Better read what I said again flakwagen but this time v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y s--l--o--w--l--y so your brain can compute the text correctly.

LEXX_Luthor
06-17-2006, 06:06 PM
SkyChimp:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were only 7 F3Ds lost during the whole of the war. Only one appears to have been possibly lost during an encounter with enemy night fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks. The night Korea war pdf link you guided us to last year gave us said several, or a number, were lost, although that included F-94s I think. Granted, our point stands where the night fighters distracted or interfered with the MiGs enough to help the B-29s survive at night.

Tipo_Man
06-18-2006, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. If you're dumb enough to equate 'planes' with F-86's. Provacative enough? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He - he ... Caught you... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Well obviously every one who does not believe to these "official" ratios is dumb.
I've never said plane is equal to a F-86.
And just for your knowledge.
Most of Pepelyaev's kills were against F-86s.
Most scoring aces of his regiment also have most of their kills against F-86.

SkyChimp
06-18-2006, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. If you're dumb enough to equate 'planes' with F-86's. Provacative enough? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He - he ... Caught you... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Well obviously every one who does not believe to these "official" ratios is dumb.
I've never said plane is equal to a F-86.
And just for your knowledge.
Most of Pepelyaev's kills were against F-86s.
Most scoring aces of his regiment also have most of their kills against F-86. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many of Pepelyaev's F-86 claims were on days with no losses of F-86s, or fewer than those claimed.

Tipo_Man
06-18-2006, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. If you're dumb enough to equate 'planes' with F-86's. Provacative enough? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He - he ... Caught you... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Well obviously every one who does not believe to these "official" ratios is dumb.
I've never said plane is equal to a F-86.
And just for your knowledge.
Most of Pepelyaev's kills were against F-86s.
Most scoring aces of his regiment also have most of their kills against F-86. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many of Pepelyaev's F-86 claims were on days with no losses of F-86s, or fewer than those claimed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the same can be said about US claims.
I remember I was curious about a claim of russians shooting down three B-29 in a day. I looked in american sources and couldn't find nowhere approval of loosing three B-29 in a day...Then in several days I found a pretty authentic description of the B-29 sortie of that day. It claimed no plane was lost in combat but three B-29 crashed during landing!!!! So they are not combat losses and do not take part into so beloved kill-to-loss ratio. I have the exact dates and the description of the battle from both sides at home... Pretty interesting don't you think?

I do not say russians were better or MiG-15 was better.
I do say that modern russian sources are much more thrustworthy.
Looks like americans still live in cold war...

In his book Pepelyaev honestly says that he never saw any of his victims crash, he saw several times pilots bail out or planes loose some vital parts.
The guy is very straightforward and even he assumes that maybe not all of his kills resulted in enemy being killed or shot down.
I'm yet to see such a confessions from an american pilots.
Still he says that there were kills that were not given to him, like the well known F-86 who crashlanded and later was captured and transferred to Moscow.

All I can find about MiG-15 vs F-86 in US sources ususally is something like this:
- MiG-15 was good but there is no doubt F-86 was better
- MiG-15 was good but due to much superiour pilots and planes and spirit we achieved 100:1 kill ratio

Looks like some communist or nazzi propaganda, don't you think?

SkyChimp
06-18-2006, 10:16 AM
Hmmmm. When saying Russian sources are more "trustworthy" than American sources, I have to take into consideration that the Soviets denied involvement in the Korean War for nearly 50 years, then came forward with grand claims of aerial victories that did not match the losses experienced by the US.

I've actually taken the time to go line-by-line through US F-86 losses matching them to Soviet claims and have concluded that the Soviets alone overclaimed against F-86s by about 10:1. And Pepelyaev was no exception to overclaiming.

Perhaps the appalling overclaiming by Soviet pilots this accounts for the grandoise, and absurd, claims that the Soviets shot down a number of F-86s in combat in Korea nearly equal to the number of all F-86s that were ever in the country during the whole of the war. Curiously, the Chinese make similar claims. The North Korean claim to have shot down some 80,000 UN aircraft.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It claimed no plane was lost in combat but three B-29 crashed during landing!!!! So they are not combat losses and do not take part into so beloved kill-to-loss ratio.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement doesn't make any sense. There is a much greater parity in overll losses-to-kills for all aircraft than there is for F-86-vs-MiG. That's because MiGs were designed to shoot down bombers. Bombers were designed to bomb. Losses of all types to kills of MiGs should be much closer, with the advatnage going to the MiG. That's the wasy its supposed to be.

With respect to the Sabre-vs-MiG kill:loss ratio, I like to compare admitted losses versus admitted losses. Again, I went through the KORWALD database line-by-line and counted all F-86 admittedly lost to MiGs, but also questionable F-86s losses (such as "ammo exploded," or "went down" after an encounter with MiGs, as well as those written off due to battle damage), and compared that number to admitted Soviet and Chinese losses (without the benefit of knowing what was written off after having returned) and found that the kill:loss ratio was about 6.5:1 in favor of the Sabre. That's very close to the USAF figure. Therefore, I conclude that the US figures are far more accurate that Soviet figures.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
All I can find about MiG-15 vs F-86 in US sources ususally is something like this:
- MiG-15 was good but there is no doubt F-86 was better
- MiG-15 was good but due to much superiour pilots and planes and spirit we achieved 100:1 kill ratio
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect to the first assertion, I believe the Sabre was better, and comparison tests seem to confirm that.

With respect to the second assertion, I have never seen a kill:loss ratio of 100:1 claimed anywhere, in any source, ever. I think you made it up. It's as absurd as the Russian claims of over 600 Sabre fkills during the course of the war.

horseback
06-18-2006, 10:18 AM
Tipoman-

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do not say russians were better or MiG-15 was better.
I do say that modern russian sources are much more thrustworthy.
Looks like americans still live in cold war...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you considered that since we already lived in an open society, and generally put the facts as we know them on the table in the first place, there was no need to go back and revise them, unless new information that we did not have before arises? The reality is that the US didn't need to go back and change their versions of events, they simply had to re-assess what they thought their results were in the light of new information.

In case you didn't notice, there were other countries participating in the UN effort in Korea, and not all of them (if any-everybody wants to see the big kid on the block get taken down a peg) would let the Americans they observed daily get away with gross untruths.

Modern Russian sources more trustworthy? Please.

Modern Russian sources may appeal more to your prejudices, but we are simply hearing the memoirs of men who participated on the other side. These men were no more honest or observant than the men on the American side, with the same lapses in judgement of their results, and the same shadings of their observations by their personal prejudices. As I pointed out in another thread, some of them were still under the impression that the US aircraft had their guns in the wings, and they appear to have claimed Sabre victories on several occasions when what they really fired on were straight winged F-80s and F-84s...reminiscent of the Germans claiming Spitfire kills instead of the less respected Hurricane during the early part of WWII.

A simple comparison of Soviet claims with dates, times and places compared to US losses, and their dates, times, and places doesn't appear to have taken place yet.

I suspect that the US claims and loss figures may make the Soviet records appear somewhat less reliable than you think.

cheers

horseback

SkyChimp
06-18-2006, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Modern Russian sources more trustworthy? Please.

Modern Russian sources may appeal more to your prejudices, but we are simply hearing the memoirs of men who participated on the other side. These men were no more honest or observant than the men on the American side, with the same lapses in judgement of their results, and the same shadings of their observations by their personal prejudices. As I pointed out in another thread, some of them were still under the impression that the US aircraft had their guns in the wings, and they appear to have claimed Sabre victories on several occasions when what they really fired on were straight winged F-80s and F-84s...reminiscent of the Germans claiming Spitfire kills instead of the less respected Hurricane during the early part of WWII.

A simple comparison of Soviet claims with dates, times and places compared to US losses, and their dates, times, and places doesn't appear to have taken place yet.

I suspect that the US claims and loss figures may make the Soviet records appear somewhat less reliable than you think.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't just cases of mistake identity, which is understandable, but more a case of simple, and gross, overclaiming. I compared US losses to Soviet claims and found that the Soiets overclaimed by a huge margin. It was so big that it had to be, in part, intentional. No doubt to please Soviet superiors, and earn the rewards Soviets were paid for confirmed kills. Here is just a small portion of my spreadsheet showing Soviet claims verses actual US F-86 losses:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/overclaims.jpg

Everything in yellow is a "confirmed kill" some Soviet was creditted with that does not correspond to an actual US loss.

Tipo_Man
06-18-2006, 10:37 AM
I said MODERN russian... not soviet claims

I've actually taken the time to go line-by-line through US F-86 losses matching them to Soviet claims and have concluded that the Soviets alone overclaimed against F-86s by about 10:1. And Pepelyaev was no exception to overclaiming.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif .. and how do you concluded that?! You make a decision of a Russian-American argument when you study carefully the american sources? How authentic!

Do you speak russian? Tell me the books or the russian sources you've read, please...
We can study them together...
Do you think Pepelyaev book is a reliable source?

Well, obviously you've made your mind about that war. Judging from the American sources...
And Pepelyaev has 1 or 2 kills , not 15.
So looks like he is a damn liar, like all other soviet aces... They simply couldn't shoot down so many american planes.

Arguing with you is pointless...
You prove your data bringing sources from one side only... Totally neglecting the other side

Tipo_Man
06-18-2006, 10:42 AM
Just noticed your sig.
How could I lure myself into an argument with a guy with such a sig... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Poor me

Sergio_101
06-18-2006, 10:46 AM
With respect to the second assertion, I have never seen a kill:loss ratio of 100:1 claimed anywhere, in any source, ever.

I have, for the F-15.
No F-15 has been lost in air to air combat.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Sergio

luftluuver
06-18-2006, 10:51 AM
If you have all this correct Soviet data why don't you go to the NORWALD site and compare it to the Soviet claims. That is if you are not too scared to find out the truth Tipo_man. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is one for Soviet claims,
http://www.korean-war.com/sovietunion.html

SkyChimp
06-18-2006, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif .. and how do you concluded that?! You make a decision of a Russian-American argument when you study carefully the american sources? How authentic!

Do you speak russian? Tell me the books or the russian sources you've read, please...
We can study them together...
Do you think Pepelyaev book is a reliable source?

Well, obviously you've made your mind about that war. Judging from the American sources...
And Pepelyaev has 1 or 2 kills , not 15.
So looks like he is a damn liar, like all other soviet aces... They simply couldn't shoot down so many american planes.

Arguing with you is pointless...
You prove your data bringing sources from one side only... Totally neglecting the other side
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on this forum? I told you I compared admitted US losses to admitted Communist losses. The US can't admit communist losses. Admitted communist losses came from the Chinese and Soviets, and doesn't even include North Korean losses.

Your a neophyte, and you've shown me that you aren't worthy of discussion.

Tipo_Man
06-19-2006, 04:20 AM
Well SkyChimp,
Is that the way you prove your point in an argument?
Calling your oponent idiot?
This is not good for you, looks like you can't beat a humble neophyte.

And what are we arguing about?
I'm neither russian, nor american, but have the advantage of speaking both languages.
I was impresses by the book , by attitude of Pepelyaev towards his enemies, by his honest,
often self-critique statements.

About losses...
In fact I do think that F-86 shot more MiG-15 than sabres were lost. But that diminishing during years
ratio seems very suspicious.

I've asked you several questions about you sources, you preffered to call me names instead of answering...
About US losses:
1.Korwald is an extremely thorough analysis of almost all original records by a big team
with intent to help find the fates of POW/MIA's not keep score on the air war. They do not focus on aircraft
loss they do focus on pilot. There is a number of planes lost not listed in KORWALD.
2. US Army admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. How many of them are in KORWALD?
Don't you think it does not speak well for the pilots or the planes to have such a huge percentage of
planes lost in non-combat conditions?

About Soviet losses:
1. You didn't bring any source to confirm US claims on MiG-15 losses.
AFAIK there is no russian KORWALD at this time.
Still this book can help you. Pepelyav lists all his regiment's losses:
KIA
10 ¸ÑŽля 1951 ³. €" з?мºом?н´¸Ñ€? 2-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ ¿о ¿ол¸Ñ"Ñ"?сÑ"¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ"? "?Ñ€¸оно²? ˜²?н? '?с¸лÑŒµ²¸Ñ"?; - 10-july-1951
26 оºÑ"ября €" сÑ". лµÑ"Ñ"¸º? 3-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ"? ¨µб?но²? ¤µ´оÑ€? º¸мо²¸Ñ"?; - 29-Oct-1951
8 ноября €" сÑ". лµÑ"Ñ"¸º? 1-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ"? ТÑ€?²¸н? лµºÑµÑ ¤µ´оÑ€о²¸Ñ"?; -08-Nov-1951
5 ´µº?бря €" сÑ". лµÑ"Ñ"¸º? 1-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ"? Ñ"¶ºо²? лµºÑ?н´Ñ€? "м¸Ñ"Ñ€¸µ²¸Ñ"?. 05-Dec-1951

К?Ñ"?¿ÑƒлÑŒÑ"¸Ñ€о²?л¸ÑÑŒ ¸з ¿о´б¸Ñ"Ñ"Ñ... м?ш¸н: Ejected
20 м?я 1951 ³. €" з?мºом?н´¸Ñ€? 2-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ º?¿¸Ñ"?н '. ?з?Ñ€º¸н; - 20-maj-1951
22 ?¿Ñ€µля €" з?мºом?н´¸Ñ€? 3-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ" ". С?мус¸н; 22-Apr-1951
9 сµнÑ"ября €" сÑ". лµÑ"Ñ"¸º 1-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ" н´Ñ€ÑŽÑˆºо; 9-Sept-1951
28 ноября €" ºом. з²µн?: 3-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ º?¿¸Ñ"?н . "осÑ"оµ²Ñº¸'; 28-Nov-1951
11 ´µº?бря €" сÑ". лµÑ"Ñ"¸º 2-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ сÑ". лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ" . ž²Ñ"¸нн¸ºо²; 11-Dec-1951
7 ян²?ря 1952 ³. €" з?мºом?н´¸Ñ€? 2-' эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸ º?¿¸Ñ"?н И. б?ºÑƒмо². 07-Jan-1952

You are very persevering in denying Russian claims, comparing them to US admitted losses,
but seems like you forget to do the same for the US claims...

So in fact the ratio you so desperately argue about looks to me like:

US claims : US admitted losses = 6:1

luftluuver
06-19-2006, 05:07 AM
The US Army? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The US Army did not fly F-86s so how can they admit to any losses?

KORWALD = Korean War Aircraft Loss Database

So if KORWALD focuses on 'pilots' then why the 'Aircraft Loss'?

Badsight-
06-19-2006, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Well SkyChimp,
2. US Army admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. How many of them are in KORWALD? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wow - so when the actual provable looses amount to 74 sabers - the US Army . . . i mean USAAF are just lying so it doesnt look so bad for the other side ?

Tipo_Man
06-19-2006, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Many of Pepelyaev's F-86 claims were on days with no losses of F-86s, or fewer than those claimed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Look here:
http://www.acepilots.com/korea/yevgeny.html

Looks like that damned communist has at least 7 absolutely confirmed kills...
And 7 more damaged/destroyed F-86 by him were credited as "non combat" losses by the americans...

So who is overclaiming?
Looks like US had the terrible habit of reporting F-86 losses as landing incidents, engine failures etc...
I can see now why they only confirm about 80 F-86 shot down out of more than 200 lost...

Badsight-
06-19-2006, 06:14 AM
but the 57(?) russian aces of the Korean war claimed more Sabers than were actually used by the UN

the only provable saber losses in the air amount to 74 (or 78 depending on your source) , on the other hand , at least 330+ Mig-15s were lost A2A

want to see the exact loss records for the UN in korea ?

http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm

here knock yourself out - each plane with cause

Tipo_Man
06-19-2006, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
want to see the exact loss records for the UN in korea ?

http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm

here knock yourself out - each plane with cause </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the same site:
As the Table above shows, not all the victories claimed by Pepelyayev match with losses admitted by American records. Four of them seems to be overclaims in good faith, one was damaged but could be repaired later, other six were misscredited by USAF to other reasons - but for sure they were actually shot down by Pepelyayev, and one is plainly not admitted despite the solid Soviet evidence confirming the victory. So, Pepelyayev actual scoreboard was FOURTHTEEN AERIAL VICTORIES. T

So, it turns out the cause reported by the UN was quite often wrong...

Tipo_Man
06-19-2006, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
but the 57(?) russian aces of the Korean war claimed more Sabers than were actually used by the UN
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
but what?!
Yes, the soviets LIE. Have I ever said they did shot down so many planes?!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
the only provable saber losses in the air amount to 74 (or 78 depending on your source) , on the other hand , at least 330+ Mig-15s were lost A2A
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes this is the number of admitted US air2air losses. Please tell me the source for "330+ Mig-15s were lost A2A", it's an american one, isn't it?

Xiolablu3
06-19-2006, 07:58 AM
You have to think that both sides didnt want to admit they lost as many planes as they did. The propaganda war was very important to both sides.

If the US could write a few planes off in landing accidents rather than saying they were shot down, then all the better, and the same for the Communists.

Its very hard to get a clear picture with all the behind the scenes stuff going on.

Slickun
06-19-2006, 05:11 PM
Tipo...

The source is a communist one.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2006, 06:05 PM
It used to be that during war you wanted to keep as little about where you are or what you're
doing from the enemy as possible while finding out as much as possible about where your enemy
is and what he's up to.

But this thread is starting to sound like CNN.

A 10:1 claims rate on paper might prove smooth if those documents came to light while at the
same time to read 1:10 is only too easy. Unless it is for newspaper text there is little other
value. Even command would know the numbers add up to too much unless US resupply and actions
were a near complete mystery to the .. Opposition Forces.

SkyChimp
06-19-2006, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Yes, the soviets LIE. Have I ever said they did shot down so many planes?!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a Russian claim.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Yes this is the number of admitted US air2air losses. Please tell me the source for "330+ Mig-15s were lost A2A", it's an american one, isn't it?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chinese claim 211 F-86s destroyed by MiGs.
The Chinese admit to loosing 224 MiGs in combat.

The Russians claim 600+ F-86s shot down.
The Russians admit to 335 MiGs lost in combat.

The Russian claim is extraordinary due to the fact that only about 600 Sabres cycled through Korea during the whole of the war. There were never that many there at any one time.

Granted, a few MiGs fell to other types of aircraft.

Actual US Sabre losses in ata combat amount to 74, with 103 being an outside possibility. Based solely on admitted losses, at best, its a 7.3:1 kill ratio in favor of the Sabre. At worst, its a 5.3:1 kill ratio in favor of the Sabre. This figure does not take into account North Korean MiG losses, which must have been minor since that mounted only about 12 sorties a month compare to 1,500-2,000+ per month for the Russians and Chinese each. These are as official numbers as they get.

My own research suggests possibly 119 Sabres destroyed by MiGs. Still a heft kill ratio in favor of the Sabre.

SkyChimp
06-19-2006, 06:22 PM
Here is my assessment of Sabre losses. I took into consideration admitted MiG losses, but also other combat losses, such a mysterious disappearance, "last seens," "ammo exploded" and missing Sabres after MiG encounters.

12/22/50 MiG Loss 49-1176 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
04/03/51 49-1173 4th Ftr-Int Gp
06/05/51 49-1130 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
06/18/51 MiG Loss 49-1307 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
06/19/51 MiG Loss 49-1298 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
06/22/51 MiG Loss 49-1276 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
07/29/51 MiG Loss 49-1098 4th Ftr-Int Gp
09/02/51 MiG Loss 49-1258 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
09/13/51 poss MiG 48-256 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
09/13/51 MiG Loss 49-1139 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
09/13/51 MiG Loss 49-1227 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
09/19/51 MiG Loss 49-1315 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
09/23/51 MiG Loss 49-1158 4th Ftr-Int Gp
09/26/51 MiG Loss 49-1113 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
10/06/51 MiG Loss 49-1178 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
10/06/51 49-1319 4th Ftr-Int Gp
10/06/51 MiG Loss 50-671 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
10/12/51 MiG Loss 50-682 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
10/16/51 MiG Loss 50-623 4th Ftr-Int Gp
10/24/51 MiG Loss 49-1236 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
10/24/51 MiG Loss 50-682 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
11/08/51 MiG Loss 49-1338 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
11/22/51 49-1166 4th Ftr-Int Gp
11/28/51 MiG Loss 50-673 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
12/04/51 MiG Loss 49-1184 4th Ftr-Int Gp
12/04/51 MiG Loss 49-1191 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
12/04/51 MiG Loss 49-1272 4th Ftr-Int Gp
12/04/51 MiG Loss 50-683 4th Ftr-Int Gp
12/04/51 MiG Loss 50-684 4th Ftr-Int Gp
12/13/51 49-1159 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
12/13/51 MiG Loss 49-1199 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
12/14/51 MiG Loss 49-1191 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
12/14/51 MiG Loss 51-2749 51st Ftr-Int Gp
12/15/51 MiG Loss 50-681 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
12/16/51 49-1315 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
12/18/51 51-2730 51st Ftr-Int Gp
12/28/51 MiG Loss 49-1083 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
01/01/52 50-635 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
01/06/52 MiG Loss 50-655 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
01/07/52 MiG Loss 50-651 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
01/09/52 MiG Loss 50-679 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
01/13/52 MiG Loss 50-612 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
01/13/52 50-615 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
01/15/52 MiG Loss 50-585 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
01/15/52 MiG Loss 50-630 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
01/25/52 48-251 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
01/25/52 49-1191 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
01/29/52 50-590 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
01/29/52 51-2734 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Fr-Int Sq
02/03/52 MiG Loss 49-1223 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
02/04/52 50-644 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
02/07/52 50-686 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
02/10/52 MiG Loss 50-645 4th Ftr-Int Gp
02/10/52 MiG Loss 51-2752 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
02/13/52 50-615 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
03/03/52 MiG Loss 51-2761 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
03/11/52 MiG Loss 50-604 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
03/14/52 50-670 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
03/15/52 50-668 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
03/19/52 MiG Loss 50-628 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
03/24/52 MiG Loss 49-1088 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
03/24/52 MiG Loss 49-1140 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
04/01/52 MiG Loss 50-586 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
04/01/52 MiG Loss 50-632 51st Ftr-Int Gp
04/02/52 MiG Loss 50-592 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
04/02/52 MiG Loss 50-602 51st Ftr-Int Gp
04/02/52 MiG Loss 50-676 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
04/02/52 MiG Loss 51-2755 51st Ftr-Int Gp
04/05/52 51-2733 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
04/13/52 MiG Loss 49-1316 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
04/13/52 MiG Loss 50-636 51st Ftr-Int Gp Hq&Hq, 51st Ftr-Int Gp
04/21/52 MiG Loss 51-2787 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
04/22/52 MiG Loss 51-2760 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
05/01/52 MiG Loss 51-2786 51st Ftr-Int Gp 51st Ftr-Int Wg/CV
05/03/52 MiG Loss 50-652 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
05/09/52 50-633 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
05/13/52 51-2789 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
05/15/52 MiG Loss 51-2739 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
05/18/52 MiG Loss 49-1123 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
05/20/52 MiG Loss 49-1255 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
05/21/52 MiG Loss 50-689 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
05/22/52 49-1327 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
05/24/52 49-1317 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
05/25/52 49-1973 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
06/05/52 51-2755 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
06/07/52 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
06/07/52 poss MiG 50-594 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
06/08/52 51-2757 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
06/21/52 MiG Loss 49-1178 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
06/24/52 MiG Loss 50-669 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
07/02/52 50-687 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
07/04/52 MiG Loss 50-683 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
07/04/52 MiG Loss 51-2769 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
07/10/52 49-1316 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
07/12/52 MiG Loss 50-597 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
07/16/52 MiG Loss 51-2797 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
07/20/52 MiG Loss 51-2828 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
07/21/52 MiG Loss 49-1210 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
08/01/52 MiG Loss 51-2767 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
08/07/52 50-685 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th ftr-Int Sq
08/08/52 poss MiG 51-2754 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
08/20/52 50-643 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
08/22/52 MiG Loss 51-2866 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
08/28/52 50-658 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
08/31/52 MiG Loss 51-2794 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
09/04/52 MiG Loss 50-678 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
09/04/52 MiG Loss 51-2722 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
09/04/52 51-2763 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
09/04/52 MiG Loss 51-2801 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
09/14/52 MiG Loss 51-2820 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
09/15/52 MiG Loss 50-641 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
09/15/52 poss MiG 50-667 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
09/15/52 50-688 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
09/16/52 MiG Loss 51-2909 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
09/28/52 MiG Loss 51-2911 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
10/01/52 50-626 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
10/03/52 MiG Loss 51-2821 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
10/06/62 MiG Loss 52-2841 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
10/11/52 MiG Loss 50-679 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
10/16/52 poss MiG 51-2798 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
10/18/52 poss MiG 52-2778 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
10/24/52 51-2902 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
11/06/52 51-2829 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
11/06/52 52-2859 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
11/18/52 poss MiG 51-1963 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
11/18/52 51-2734 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
11/21/52 poss MiG 51-2489 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
11/22/52 poss MiG 51-6274 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
11/22/52 MiG Loss 51-2758 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
11/22/52 poss MiG 51-12974 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
12/05/52 MiG Loss 51-12906 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
12/05/52 51-2903 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
12/22/52 MiG Loss 51-12966 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
12/27/52 52-2842 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
12/28/52 poss MiG 51-2727 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
12/28/52 MiG Loss 51-12948 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
01/07/53 51-2744 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
01/08/53 poss MiG 51-12968 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
01/15/53 MiG Loss 51-12950 51st Ftr-Int Gp
01/17/53 MiG Loss 51-12975 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
01/21/53 51-2846 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
01/23/53 MiG Loss 52-2871 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
01/25/53 51-2861 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
01/26/53 MiG Loss 51-2796 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
01/30/53 poss MiG 51-12960 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
02/02/53 51-12941 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
02/02/53 51-12941 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
02/04/53 MiG Loss 51-2749 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
02/07/53 51-12947 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
02/11/53 51-12975 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
02/12/53 MiG Loss 51-12938 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
02/19/53 MiG Loss 52-2839 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
03/09/53 MiG Loss 51-2827 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
03/13/53 MiG Loss 52-2879 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
03/21/53 MiG Loss 51-12957 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
03/21/53 MiG Loss 51-12976 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
03/23/53 51-12941 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
03/26/53 MiG Loss 51-12936 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
03/30/53 52-2873 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
03/31/53 50-607 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
04/07/53 MiG Loss 51-2852 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
04/12/53 MiG Loss 1297 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
04/12/53 MiG Loss 52-2891 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
04/12/53 MiG Loss 51-12971 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
04/16/53 MiG Loss 52-4382 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
04/30/53 51-2803 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
05/04/53 52-2840 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
06/25/52 poss MiG 50-620 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
05/15/53 51-2765 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
05/16/53 51-2833 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
05/17/53 poss MiG 51-12962 4th Ftr-Int Gp
05/17/53 52-4335 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 12th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
05/27/53 50-631 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
05/27/53 50-634 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
05/31/53 52-4354 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
05/31/53 52-4362 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/04/53 51-2838 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
06/05/53 51-2762 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
06/06/53 52-4421 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 35th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/07/53 MiG Loss 51-2905 51st Ftr-Int Gp
06/10/53 52-4339 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 12th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/11/53 51-2938 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
06/15/53 51-2923 4th Ftr-Int Gp 334th Ftr-Int Sq
06/15/53 52-4319 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 12th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/15/53 52-4380 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 12th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/16/53 51-2832 51st Ftr-Int Gp 25th Ftr-Int Sq
06/16/53 52-4323 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 12th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/16/53 52-4388 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/16/53 52-4452 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/16/53 52-4486 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 80th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/16/53 52-4582 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/16/53 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 12th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/18/53 52-4325 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/19/53 52-2855 51st Ftr-Int Gp 39th Ftr-Int Sq
06/19/53 52-4367 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 36th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/19/53 52-4424 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 35th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/19/53 52-4455 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 36th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/19/53 52-4531 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 35th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/25/53 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 67th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
06/27/53 52-4387 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/29/53 52-4312 18th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
06/30/53 52-4457 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 80th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
07/11/53 52-2836 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
07/11/53 51-12972 4th Ftr-Int Gp 335th Ftr-Int Sq
07/11/53 52-4491 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp
07/20/53 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 35th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
07/20/53 51-2756 51st Ftr-Int Gp 16th Ftr-Int Sq
07/20/53 MiG Loss 51-2836 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
07/20/53 poss MiG 51-12973 4th Ftr-Int Gp 336th Ftr-Int Sq
07/20/53 52-4469 8th Ftr-Bmbr Gp 35th Ftr-Bmbr Sq
07/21/53 52-4368 SAAF 2 SAAF Sq

If it doesn't say "MiG loss" or Poss MiG", it was a loss to another cause, not MiG related.


103 Confirmed Losses to MiGs
16 Possibles
119 Possible Losses to MiGs During Korean War

The 119 number also includes Sabres that returned damaged by MiGs, but may have been repaired to fly and fight again.

1 Loss 1950
28 Losses 1951, 1 possible
55 losses 1952, 10 possible
19 losses 1953, 5 possible

SkyChimp
06-19-2006, 06:44 PM
Here are the loss decriptions for each F-86 lost. Each line corresponds to the same line on the List I just posted. So, you could cut and past the last list I posted into Excel, and then cut and paste this one in an adjacent column.

8 F-86s vs. 13 MiG-15s, downed by MiG 25 mi fm Sauchon at approx. 0900L
Instrument malfunction, fuel exhaustion, bellied in on river bank 10 mi NW of Kaesong
Jettisoned external fuel tanks, crashed on take-off .5 mi off end of runway at Suwon K-13
4 F-86s, this F-86 downed by formation of 8-12 MiGs
Downed by 2 MiGs near Sonchon, 50 km ESE of Sinuiju
Downed by MiG at 0645L
Damaged by MiG in dogfight, bailed out 6 mi NE of Suwon
2 F-86s vs. 6 MiG-15s, shot down by MiG, bailed out near mouth of Chongchon River
Explosion and flame out while on combat mission, successful bail out over Yellow Sea
Severely damaged by MiG-15s
Damaged by MiGs during dogfight
Damaged by MiGs during dogfight
Damaged by MiG
Flight of four F-86s, shot down by MiG over Sinuiju at approx 1010L
Damaged during encounter with MiGs
Hit by gnd fire 15 mi SW of Sinanju, crashed into the sea, bail out into Sinanju River
Damaged by MiGs, extensive damage to hydraulic system, ejected over friendly territory
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, hydraulics shot out, belly landed on runway
Damaged during encounter with MiGs
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s vs 3 MiGs, tail section smoking at Sinanju heading SW at 1530L
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s vs. 4 MiGs, tail damaged, crashed at approx 1517L
4 F-86s escorting RF-80 near Sinanju, attacked by 10-12 MiGs, 1340L, last seen headed West
Engine failure, successful bail out
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s vs. 10 MiG-15s, no chute observed, Sinanju area
Damaged by MiGs, ejected near Han River
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, returned to base
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, returned to base
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, returned to base
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, returned to base
Ingested debris from downed MiG, bailed out near Cho-do
On combat mission over North Korea, downed by MiG, 4 F-86s attacked by 4 MiG-15s in Sinanju area
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, returned to base
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, returned to base
Damaged by MiGs, lost hydraulic system, aborted landing, bailed out, chute did not open
Training mission, mechanical problems, successful bail out
Hit by AAA, bailed out into Yellow Sea near Cho-do
Damaged by MiGs appox 35 mi S of Antung, crashed enroute to home base, no egress noed
Returning from combat mission, landing gear malf/fuel starvation, crashed at Suwon
Downed by MiG-15, 4 F-86s attacked by 4 MiGs
Missing on combat sortie in Antung area, poss downed by MiG at 0940L
Severely damaged by MiGs, transferred for repair
2 F86s attacked 4 MiGs (many MiGs in the area), headed for Cho-do
Engine explosion, crashed
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s vs. MiGs (flights of 4/6/4 MiGs) 5 mi from Sukchon, at 1430L
Hit by MiG, bailed out at 1435L
Flame out due to fuel starvation, crashed at K-14
Lost power, flame out, successful air start, engine failed on approach, crashed.
Flameout 25 mi S of Chongju, NK, 30 mi S of Mizu, unsuccessful air start, bailed out
On combat mission, maintained CAP over downed wingman for too long, flamed out while returning to base
4 F-86s attacked by two flights of MiGs, engine damaged, on fire, Wonsan area, ejected
Engine trailing smoke, engine exploded, unsuccessful air start, headed for Cho-do, unsuccessful bail out
Took off on combat mission, engine exploded, caught fire, ejection seat malfunctioned, bailed out at low altitude
Damaged during encounter with MiGs
4 F-86s attacked 10 MiGs, destroyed 2 MiGs, then downed by MiG
Explosion in engine section, successfully ejected 6 mi N of K-14, rescued
Hit by 23-mm shell, MiG damage
Damaged by MiG-15, crash landed on Cho-do
On test flight after engine change, lost contact with lead aircraft, went into spin, crashed 28 mi SE of K-14
Became separated from other flt members while on weather recce near Chinnampo
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, salvaged
Damaged during encounter with MiGs, landed at K-14
4 F-86s attacked 3 MiG-15s, jumped by 2 more MiGs, acft disappeared
Downed by MiG, bailed out over Cho-do, helo rescue
Heavily damaged by MiG
Downed by MiG, bailed out S of Cho-do, rescued
Heavily damaged by MiG
Sustained major battle damage from MiG
Heavily damaged by MiG
Returning from combat mission, crashed 600 ft short of runway on overrun
Damaged by MiG
MiG engagement south of Yalu, oil slick on water near Liaotung, China
Downed by MiG, successful bail out
Shot down MiG, major damage from flying debris, returned to base safely
Downed by MiG, E&Eed on island off the coast of Korea, rescued
Downed by MiG, crashed into water
Returning from a combat mission, poss hydraulic failure, experienced control problems, crashed landed at K-14
Downed by enemy ground fire while on a mission against the Kunu-ri and Sinanju areas
Damaged by MiG, bailed out
Downed by MiGs, successful bail out at mouth of Yalu River, rescued
2 F-86s attacked by 4 MiGs, downed by MiG near Suiho Reservoir, 10 mi S of Sakchu
Two F-86s attacked by 6 MiGs, downed by MiG S of Sonchon
Combat mission, fuel starvation, crashed .5 mi short of runway at K-14, totally destroyed
Returning from combat mission, went into spin, could not recover, successful ejection 15 mi NW of Seoul
Struck by debris from downed MiG, landed safely at K-14
Approx 10 minutes after take-off, explosion accompanied by flame out, aircraft on fire, successful bailout, helo rescue
Flamed out, providing CAP over downed flyer (Lt Mann) successfully ejected over Yellow Sea
Damaged by enemy fire, hydraulic failure, crashed into Yellow Sea, rescued by SAR forces
Mechanical failure, succesful bail out over Cho-do, rescued by Navy surface vessel
4 MiG-15s vs. 4 F-86s, downed by MiGs 3 mi S of Uiju
Damaged by MiG over Yalu, crash landed at K-14
High cross winds during landing attempt, aircraft blown to right of runway on final, hit hill 1,000 ft short of runway and crashed into village
Damaged by MiG, bailed out over Cho-do, SA-16 SAR effort unsuccessful
Damaged by MiG, successful bail out over Cho-do
Poss fuel system failure, engine exploded, caught fire shortly after take off, successful bail out 6 mi N of K-14
Hit by MiG, bailed out N of Cho-do, rescued
4 F-86s attacked by 5 MiGs, midair explosion at 1758L
Failed to return from combat mission, 34 F-86s vs. 8 MiGs, last contact at 1706L
Damaged during encounter with MiGs
2 F-86s attacked by 2 MiGs over Sakchu, aircraft in a spin, wing came off at 0927L
Returning to base after dark, too low on approach, struck top of hill 1/4 mi short of runway, aircraft demolished
Flamed out near Cho-do, successful ejection, rescued
Ingested MiG debris, engine failure, successfully ejected 20 mi off shore (Korea Bay)
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s vs. poss 4 MiG-15s
Flamed out, successful bail out
Damaged during encounter with MiGs
Damaged by MiG, hydraulic failure, crash landed
Downed by MiGs, ejected over Yellow Sea near P-Y-do
Damaged by debris from downed MiG, flamed out, successful bail out over Yellow Sea
Damaged by MiG, gyro-radio compass malfunction, bailed out near Port Arthur (Dairen) China
Downed by MiGs, successful bail out observed
Damaged by MiG, crash landed
Engine blew up, bailed out N of Cho-do
On fighter-bomber escort mission near Yalu River, hit by AAA, successful bailout near Cho-do
Downed by MiG, 2 F-86s attacked by 2 flights of 3 MiGs each 5 mi S of Sinuiju, actually crashed near Andung, China
Downed by MiG-15 after downing MiG (the second one on that day), successful bailout over Yellow Sea
Completed combat training mission over North Korea, controls malfunctioned while landing
Combat mission, downed MiG, fuel starvation, bailed out over Yellow Sea, SA-16 rescue
Downed by MiG, successfully bailed out at 1223L, pilot could not be picked up
Downed by MiG, bailed out over west coast of NK, rescued from mud flats
Operational loss, bailed out near Cho-do, rescued
Burst into flames, crashed
Landed on last third of runway, attempted to go around, poss compressor stall, total loss
VFR clearance, crashed into mountain 10 mi E of Seoul in bad weather
VFR clearance, crashed into mountain 10 mi E of Seoul in bad weather
Battle damage
Reported oxygen system malfunction, entered overcast, disappeared
Enemy action, bailed out successfully over Yellow Sea, rescued
Bailed out over western coast of North Korea, rescued
MiGs shot off canopy, bailed out near Cho-do, rescued
Battle damage
Downed by MiGs
Caught fire after take-off, successful bail-out 5 mi N of K-13
Damaged by MiG, headed for Cho-do to bail out
Crashed, cause unknown
Engine fire, bailed out N of Cho-do, rescued
Major damage by MiGs
Operational loss, crashed short of runway
Operational loss
Damaged by MiG-15
Damaged by debris from MiG
Damaged by debris from MiG
MiG shot up wing roots and fuselage, downed off China near Uiju, North Korea
Flame out, bailed out over Yellow Sea near Cho-do, rescued
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s attacked by 6 MiG, crashed inverted
Operational loss
Damaged by debris from MiG
Damaged by debris from MiG
MiG-15s severely damaged F-86
Damaged by debris from MiG
Crashed during final approach
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s escorting RF-80 engaged 6 MiGs over Sinuiju
Downed by MiG
3 F-86s engaged by 2 MiGs, crashed and burned
4 F-86s attacked by 16 MiGs, unsuccessful bail out
Damaged by debris from MiG
Damaged by 37mm projectile from MiG
Damaged by debris from MiG
Major damage by 37 mm projectile from MiG-15, landed at home base
Returning from combat mission, dove into cloudcover and crashed
Hit by AAA, engine failure, bailed out near Cho-do, rescued
Downed by MiG, 2 F-86s in dogfight with 4 MiGs
Downed by MiG, bailed out N of Cho-do, SA-16 rescue
Downed by MiG, 4 F-86s engaged by 2 MiGs 20 mi S of Suiho Reservoir (7 mi S of Sakchu)
Downed by MiGs, bailed out over Yellow Sea, Spec Ops H-19 helo rescue
Poss downed by MiG, successful bail out over Cho-do, helo rescue
Operational, not due to enemy action, bailed out N of Cho-do, rescued
Crashed on take-off
Operational loss
Could not jettison wing tank, attemped to return to base, lost btwn Cho-do & Chinnampo
Flamed out, successful bail out N of Cho-do
Lost due to enemy action, successful bailout near Cho-do
Operational, not due to enemy action, bailed out near Cho-do, rescued
Internal explosion, crashed into the sea at 20 degree angle and exploded
Engine trouble, successful bail out over Yellow Sea, rescued
Crashed on landing
Operational, not due to enemy action
Separated from flight in bad weather, no radio contact
Operational, engine exploded, bailed out over mouth of Yalu River
Hit by AAA, successful bail out
Tail section damaged by MiGs
Downed by AAA
Internal explosion, flame out, crashed
Operational, not due to enemy action (poss downed by friendly fire - per AF History)
Downed by AAA
Night mission, other crews observed that aircraft failed to pull up and crashed
Hit by gnd fire while leading 4 F-86s, bailed out successfully approx 6 mi SE of Cholsan
No. 2 man in four-man flight on armed reconnaissance mission, did not pull out of bomb run and crashed into the ground
Downed by AAA near Chorwon, rescued
Failed to pull out of bomb run, crashed, exploded
Downed by ground fire
Flying lead in four-man flight on armed reconnaissance mission, lost electrical power during bomb run, flame out
Downed by ground fire
Engine problems, crashed approx 4 mi NE of Namsi-**** NK
Disappeared while on strafing run, probably hit by gnd fire, crash not observed
Hit by AAA, streaming fuel, caught fire, bailed out successfully over friendly territory
Hit by gnd fire, crashed, bailed out
Downed by AAA, mid-air explosion
Flamed out, stalled, crashed at end of runway, unsuccessful ejection
Flame out, successful ejection
Bailed out over Haeju Peninsula after strike on target
Gnd fire, failed to pull out of strafing run, crashed
Collided with F-86 (51-12972), disintegrated, burned
Collided with F-86 (52-2836), disintegrated, burned
Downed by gnd fire, successful bail out, rescued
Hit by gnd fire, bailed out near K-13
2 F-86s, rescue msn providing RESCAP over downed pilot, aircraft crashed for unknown reason
Hit by MiG, ejected
Hit by enemy fire, lost both wings
Direct hit by AAA following bomb run, crashed
Caught fire after bombing run, bailed out

Slickun
06-19-2006, 07:47 PM
Thanks, SC. A superb job, closely matching the findings of several other (some published) RECENT sources.

Some other tidbits:

Between 12 and 15 (don't remember the exact number) Saber pilots repatriated after the war. This is a number agreed on by both sides. It is a number closely matching the US side, not the communist side.

A special unit was sent to Korea to try to capture a Saber. It was unsuccessful, and several of the elite members were shot down. If so many were falling like rain, why that need?

Pepelayev, on at least one occasion, has stated that his claims were inflated, and US pilots were at least as well trained as the Soviet pilots.

Only about 115 B-29's ever served in the FEAF. Reports of hundreds lost are simply a fantasy.

Communist pilots could make a claim if they thought the plane would be a write off. In other words, they could claim what other countries would call a probable or damaged.

Some communist claims are anti-aircraft, if that gun was a part of a flying unit.

Claiming write-offs is dubious at best. The plane can be cannibalized.

Slickun
06-19-2006, 08:09 PM
My Dad was attacked by a night fighter in Korea. During a B-26 night intruder mission, his gunner called out a bogie.

Dad told him to tell him when the guy was going to fire. When the gunner called break, Dad dropped flaps and chopped the throttles, and the "Yak" flew by.

Dad raised the flaps, firewalled the throttles, and let off a burst from the 14 forward firing .50's. Not having an aerial sight, he used "Kentucky windage".

No hits observed by either side, and both planes and pilots let discression be the better part of valor.

BfHeFwMe
06-19-2006, 08:15 PM
And lets not forget the bounty paid per F-86 claimed. Quite the incentive for being a multiple ace. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tipo_Man
06-20-2006, 02:47 AM
SkyChimp I asked you questions, but you preferred not to respond to them.
Should I repeat them? Are you playing an ..... you know what?

1.USAF admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. How many of them are in KORWALD?
Don't you think it does not speak well for the pilots or the planes to have such a huge percentage of
planes lost in non-combat conditions?

2.You are very persevering in denying Russian claims, comparing them to US admitted losses,
but seems like you forget to do the same for the US claims...
Can you provide other side confirmation of the american kills?

Instead you provide well known american sources. I do not deny them, what's your point?


Now let's see what we have till now.

You said:
Soviets alone overclaimed against F-86s by about 10:1. And Pepelyaev was no exception to overclaiming.

In fact my point was that Pepelyaev was very successful. And it turns out he really was.
If he overclaimed, it was by a margin by one-third, not ten times as you try to convince me.

Will you admit you made a mistake?
I hope you read the link I posted.
It turns out that he has at least 13 confirmed by the US sources planes,
more than his whole regiment has lost during his combat in Korea!
And there were several other aces in his regiment. Oh, I know, they are damn liars....

Now let's pay closer attention to the Pepelyaev kills.
Almost half of the planes shot down by Pepelyaev were reported as non A2A kill, so they do not take part into this so beloved ratio.
It turns out that US had the bad habit of misreporting shot down planes as "non-combat losses", or non-A2A kills.
No army would accept a plane into service when it will lose two thirds of it in non-comabt accidents.
If we take into account Pepelyaev's case, we see that actually US confirmed only half of the Sabres he shot down.
If we accept the fact that US reported half of shot down planes like A2A losses,
the number of non-combat losses for Sabres becomes somewhat more aceptable i.e about 60 out of 217. Which is still high.
And you know better than me that combat losses of Sabres were exclusively due to MiG-15.
It was the only capable communist fighter, there were few and obsolete bombers to attack.
AAA was old (from WWII era) and could hardly score a hit against a small and fast target as a Sabre...

So that ratio immediatelly turns into:
"US claims" : "US semi-admitted losses" = 3:1

Till you provide other side confirmation the first part of the equation will be "claims",
you know what this means.

And something more about us losses, there were number of occasions, when MiG-15 kills were confirmed by
plane's wreckage, but there is no data of losses in KORWALD... What I imply is that number of losses
was higher that those confirmed by the US.

And finally, I repeat it again.
Please, Show confirmation of F-86 kills... otherwise the ratio for me remains:
"US claims" : "US semi-admitted losses" = 3:1

Sergio_101
06-20-2006, 03:01 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
SkyChimp I asked you questions, but you preferred not to respond to them.
Should I repeat them? Are you playing an ..... you know what?

1.US Army admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. How many of them are in KORWALD?
Don't you think it does not speak well for the pilots or the planes to have such a huge percentage of
planes lost in non-combat conditions?


Errrr, you have a couple of problems here.
Educate yourself to the facts before you
provide a knee jerk responce.

The US ARMY would have a hard time providing any
data since the USAF flew F-86s.
The US Army can admit to NO Sabre losses.

Typically, if your dubious data is correct,
non combatant losses run about 50% of total losses
in fighter aircraft of that era.
Thet would fit into Sky Chimp's 7:1 estimate.

Late in WWII and more so in Korea, gun camera
or wreckage evidence was required for kill
confirmation. While not perfect, it was a big help.

Sergio

Tipo_Man
06-20-2006, 03:09 AM
A lot of kills miss in your list SkyChimp.


20-May-1951 196 IAP, 324 IAD MiG-15bis 23/37mm F-86A Milton Nelson (*) 335 FIS, USAF

The skillful Nelson (who wrongly had claimed a MiG kill few minutes earlier and would shot down 2 MiGs
fully confirmed by the Russian loss records) managed to bring his crippled Sabre back to Kimpo,
but then it was written off. Nelson never saw Pepelyayev, and he wrongly assumed that the troublesome M23 ammo
had blown away alone. Without knowing it, Nelson became the first out of the 19 victories that
Polkovnik Yevgeny Pepelyaeyev would be credited with.

11-Jul-1951 196 IAP, 324 IAD MiG-15bis 23/37mm F-86A BuNo 49-1297 (*) 336 FIS, USAF
His victim was the F-86A BuNo.49-1297 (336th FIS), flown by a pilot surnamed Reeves, who managed to bring his crippled
Sabre back to Suwon, but once there crashed on landing. Fortunatelly Reeves was not injured at all,
but his F-86A was written off two days later. The USAF officially reported the loss as a €œlanding accident€.



6-Oct-1951 196 IAP, 324 IAD MiG-15bis 23/37mm F-86A BuNo 49-1267 (*) 334 FIS, USAF
Few hours later, Pepelyayev blasted another Sabre out of the sky, the F-86A BuNo 49-1267 (334th FIS),
his second kill of the day (according to USAF official records, this Sabre was lost because of an "engine failure").



16-Oct-1951 196 IAP, 324 IAD MiG-15bis 23/37mm F-86A Nicholas Kotek (*) 336 FIS, USAF
http://www.acepilots.com/korea/F86Kotek_sd_Pepelyayev16-10-1951-2.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/F86Kotek_sd_Pepelyayev16-10-1951-2.jpg
As a matter of fact, Pepelyayev had opened fire before Kotek was able to break -the guncamera pics show
that Pepelyayev was at only 80-100 meters (240-300 feet)- and one 23 mm shell hit Kotek's F-86A (BuNo 49-1147)
in the fuel tank. Initially that was not noticed by the US pilots, but during the return Nick Kotek realised
he was running out of fuel and was forced to bail out before to reach his base. In good faith Kotek and USAF believed
that the loss have been caused by "fuel starvation".
The truth was that the "Sabre Hunter" had piled up one more F-86 to his scoreboard.



28-Nov-1951 196 IAP, 324 IAD MiG-15bis 23/37mm F-86A BuNo 49-1166 (*) 4 FIW, USAF
November 28 1951, destroyed 2 F-86s in a matter of minutes; flying his MiG-15bis ***ot Nº 1315325,
Yevgeny Pepelyayev badly shot-up the F-86A BuNo 49-1166
[USAF admitts the loss, but credits it to a "collison with an object"]


Sorry for your effort, but looks loke you refuse to see the obvious...

So maybe you should change you sig to:
"Hammer the American hard enough and he will twist the history to tell his children he was the winner"

Tipo_Man
06-20-2006, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
SkyChimp I asked you questions, but you preferred not to respond to them.
Should I repeat them? Are you playing an ..... you know what?

1.US Army admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. How many of them are in KORWALD?
Don't you think it does not speak well for the pilots or the planes to have such a huge percentage of
planes lost in non-combat conditions?


Errrr, you have a couple of problems here.
Educate yourself to the facts before you
provide a knee jerk responce.

The US ARMY would have a hard time providing any
data since the USAF flew F-86s.
The US Army can admit to NO Sabre losses.

Typically, if your dubious data is correct,
non combatant losses run about 50% of total losses
in fighter aircraft of that era.
Thet would fit into Sky Chimp's 7:1 estimate.

Late in WWII and more so in Korea, gun camera
or wreckage evidence was required for kill
confirmation. While not perfect, it was a big help.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Sergio,
Why do you think my data is dubious?
I use AMERICAN one, KORWALD, and Pepelyaev's book.
Please, bring yours if you like to argue...

And something more...
While providing you with data and links about the topic, I was called "dumb","idiot", "non educated" etc...
Well maybe I am. But it's never good to degrade your opponent abilities.
Because, if you lose, it turns out you are worse than him...

Sergio_101
06-20-2006, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
SkyChimp I asked you questions, but you preferred not to respond to them.
Should I repeat them? Are you playing an ..... you know what?

1.US Army admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. How many of them are in KORWALD?
Don't you think it does not speak well for the pilots or the planes to have such a huge percentage of
planes lost in non-combat conditions?


Errrr, you have a couple of problems here.
Educate yourself to the facts before you
provide a knee jerk responce.

The US ARMY would have a hard time providing any
data since the USAF flew F-86s.
The US Army can admit to NO Sabre losses.

Typically, if your dubious data is correct,
non combatant losses run about 50% of total losses
in fighter aircraft of that era.
Thet would fit into Sky Chimp's 7:1 estimate.

Late in WWII and more so in Korea, gun camera
or wreckage evidence was required for kill
confirmation. While not perfect, it was a big help.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Sergio,
Why do you think my data is dubious?
I use AMERICAN one, KORWALD, and Pepelyaev's book.
Please, bring yours if you like to argue...

And something more...
While providing you with data and links about the topic, I was called "dumb","idiot", "non educated" etc...
Well maybe I am. But it's never good to degrade your opponent abilities.
Because, if you lose, it turns out you are worse than him... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifPepelyaev's book http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Tipo_Man
06-20-2006, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

The Chinese claim 211 F-86s destroyed by MiGs.
The Chinese admit to loosing 224 MiGs in combat.

The Russians claim 600+ F-86s shot down.
The Russians admit to 335 MiGs lost in combat.

The Russian claim is extraordinary due to the fact that only about 600 Sabres cycled through Korea during the whole of the war. There were never that many there at any one time.

Granted, a few MiGs fell to other types of aircraft.

Actual US Sabre losses in ata combat amount to 74, with 103 being an outside possibility. Based solely on admitted losses, at best, its a 7.3:1 kill ratio in favor of the Sabre. At worst, its a 5.3:1 kill ratio in favor of the Sabre. This figure does not take into account North Korean MiG losses, which must have been minor since that mounted only about 12 sorties a month compare to 1,500-2,000+ per month for the Russians and Chinese each. These are as official numbers as they get.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The different russians sources claim they have lost about 330-370 planes overall, not in A2A combat.That includes planes strafed on airfields, crashed pilots, etc...

So when the russians say they have lost 335 MiG-15, you immedeatelly conclude most of them have been shot down by F-86 !!! how appropriate!

When Americans say they have lost 217 planes in Korea only 80 of them are "combat losses", so you can made up whatever ratio you would like!!!

It's so easy!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
My own research suggests possibly 119 Sabres destroyed by MiGs. Still a heft kill ratio in favor of the Sabre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your own investigetion cost nothing... It misses half of the F-86 shot down. Hope I made it clear for you.

joeap
06-20-2006, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifPepelyaev's book http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, I think I'll put you in the same club as Sintubin for rejecting different sources. What's wrong with reading sources from both sides of the fence. That's what smart people do.

Oh yeah....

Slickun
06-20-2006, 12:43 PM
The numbers are what they are.

The UN has listed their losses, and to what causes. Are some of the records incomplete, and are some "best guesses"? Of course. Much of their flying was over enemy territory.

The Communists have listed theirs, and from what causes.

These are the numbers used, admitted losses, not claims from the other side. Believe the country doing the dying, not the claiming.

The Communists overclaimed by a factor of 7 or 8. The US by a factor of 1/3, barring a conspiracy.

Rjel
06-20-2006, 04:44 PM
Tipo_Man,
You remind me of the guy who accused Buzz Aldrin of never having walked on the moon. He got his teeth knocked in. Careful you never insult one of those lying Ba$tard U.S.A.F. pilots about their exagerated kills. BTW, Aldrin supposedly shot down two MiG 15s himself. And walked on the moon? Can't be. Can it???

Arkasha_1960
06-20-2006, 05:01 PM
Hmmm. It seems to me that we just have a war of sources: the Soviets and the UN/USAF. Each side believes its claims are correct.

Personally, I have my doubts about both the Soviet AND KORWALD numbers. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "just because" the source is Western, it's any more/less accurate than any other.

As a cautionary tale, those of you old enough to remember the first Gulf War might recall the stellar performance of the Patriot missile, and its ability to destroy Scuds.

Only it turned out later on that the Patriot's accuracy "score" had to be adjusted downward quite a bit. One source even said their accuracy might be as low as _zero_. As in, they didn't hit a Scud. Ever. Despite the claims being made by "reliable" sources. The issue is still being debated, of course.

SkyChimp
06-20-2006, 07:10 PM
The thing about KORWALD is that they are not claims, they are aircraft dispositions. I question each side's claims, too. That's the reason I compared admissions. No one can be sure if even the admissions are correct. But to suggest the Americans underreported lost planes ignores the fact that such ommissions would have fueled a conspiracy theory worthy of monthly History Channel documentaries. I simply don't buy that the US underreported its losses. If it did, where's the outcry from families seeking info on lost pilots? There isn't any.

luftluuver
06-20-2006, 07:27 PM
Be sure SkyChimp. In the old Soviet world stuff could be hiden but not in the Western world.

horseback
06-20-2006, 09:14 PM
About operational losses: During WWII, most air forces lost something like three aircraft in non-combat operations for every aircraft lost in combat. Flying high performance aircraft is dangerous, without the added attraction of people shooting at you.

I was the son of a career US Air Force NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer). From 1953 to 1971, I lived on or very close to US Air Force bases in the continental US and Great Britain. As a result, many if not most, of my classmates were also Air Force 'brats'.

Since pilots and aircrew formed a minority of the USAF's personnel, it would naturally follow that less than a third of my clasmates in any given year would be the offspring of aircrew.

I cannot remember a single year from kindergarten until my senior year in high school where one of my classmates didn't lose his or her father to a non-combat related crash operating out of one of our local bases.

Studies have shown that it was FAR more dangerous to fly jet fighters over the Continental United States from 1945-1965 than it was to fly combat missions over VietNam.

If only half the Sabres lost in Korea during 1950-1953 were operational losses, flying in marginal weather off PSP strips and so on, that would be an admirable safety record for the period.

cheers

horseback

joeap
06-21-2006, 06:17 AM
horseback, wow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Slickun
06-21-2006, 07:39 AM
My situation is remarkably like Horseback's, except the job my Pop had.

I remember being frozen with fear at a little league game. There was a preliminary report that an F-101B had been lost on the local TV. I was almost unable to play with the thought it was my Dad's. Our coach, a maintenance MSgt from the squadron, finally saw what was going on, took me aside, and assured me it wasn't Dad.

To echo what SkyChimp, and I, have been TRYING to say, is that we are not using CLAIMS. We are using ADMITTED LOSSES by the countries themselves. Is Russia lying about its LOSSES? Is the UN lying about the number of planes lost? We're talking about conspiracies here, and as Arkasha points out, in the West the truth usually comes out. Hiding some 400 extra pilot and plane losses? Yeah, sure.

We are NOT going by what scared, frantic pilots, hair on fire, with whatever agenda underlying, THOUGHT they saw.

We are going by what the Communist, and UN sources admit they LOST.

Again, one stat both sides agree on is the dozen or 15 F-86 pilots repatriated by the Communists after the war. This low number supports the loss data from the UN, not the claim data from the Communist forces.

Spirited away to the USSR, the rest? The other hundreds shot down, always over Communist territory? Not apparently so. Exaustive research shows that perhaps a couple of F-86 pilots were, no more.

It was so hard to get F-86 pilots and planes the Russkies sent a special unit to Korea to try to capture such. That failed, with several losses to the elite pilots in the unit.

Pepalayev finally got one that crash landed, and the plane recovered.

All of this is terribly incongrous with the claims of hundreds of F-86's going down. Maybe they all made it back to base and were write offs?

WWSensei
06-21-2006, 08:09 AM
What I found interesting in the first post (I ignored most of the rest) is that they felt American pilots were worse because of 5 reasons:

"1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
2)Not aggressive.
3)Flying in small groups.
4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun."

With the exception of number 2 the other 4 are standard doctrine first defined by Boelke in WWI becoming the infamous Dicta Boelke. Since then these concepts have been drilled as the CORRECT way to enter in air combat--not weaknesses.

Any pilot who wouldn't follow these concepts I would consider an idiot. Possibly brave and how heroes win medals--posthumously.

Given their opinion that 4 of these are marks of bad pilots I can see why they would think they were not agressive. However, It seems they were equating "stupid" with "aggressive".

Slickun
06-21-2006, 08:17 AM
Pepalayev is on record as saying that US pilots were at least as well trained as Soviet pilots.

luftluuver
06-21-2006, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
What I found interesting in the first post (I ignored most of the rest) is that they felt American pilots were worse because of 5 reasons:

"1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
2)Not aggressive.
3)Flying in small groups.
4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun."

With the exception of number 2 the other 4 are standard doctrine first defined by Boelke in WWI becoming the infamous Dicta Boelke. Since then these concepts have been drilled as the CORRECT way to enter in air combat--not weaknesses.

Any pilot who wouldn't follow these concepts I would consider an idiot. Possibly brave and how heroes win medals--posthumously.

Given their opinion that 4 of these are marks of bad pilots I can see why they would think they were not agressive. However, It seems they were equating "stupid" with "aggressive". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That would explain the high MiG losses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tipo_Man
06-21-2006, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
What I found interesting in the first post (I ignored most of the rest) is that they felt American pilots were worse because of 5 reasons:

"1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
2)Not aggressive.
3)Flying in small groups.
4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun."

With the exception of number 2 the other 4 are standard doctrine first defined by Boelke in WWI becoming the infamous Dicta Boelke. Since then these concepts have been drilled as the CORRECT way to enter in air combat--not weaknesses.

Any pilot who wouldn't follow these concepts I would consider an idiot. Possibly brave and how heroes win medals--posthumously.

Given their opinion that 4 of these are marks of bad pilots I can see why they would think they were not agressive. However, It seems they were equating "stupid" with "aggressive". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact Pepelyaev did the almost the same comments as you in the book. These reasons were given by pilots by other regiment, who first met sabres, who were very self confident and were trying to make americans looks like noobs.
Pepelyaev himself was very conspicious about this descriptions and later described american pilots as very well trained. Still he could distinguish a not experienced pilot in combat .Notice non-experienced, not not well-trained. I saw nowhere in the whole book any bad words american pilots...
Or maybe just one, not exactly a the same... but he stated that it was common practice for americans to shoot at bailed out pilots...
He said him, or anyone in his regiment never did this...
The most interesting thing is that in the whole book I feel no disguise or hatred towards the enemy... only respect.

Arkasha_1960
06-21-2006, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The thing about KORWALD is that they are not claims, they are aircraft dispositions. I question each side's claims, too. That's the reason I compared admissions. No one can be sure if even the admissions are correct. But to suggest the Americans underreported lost planes ignores the fact that such ommissions would have fueled a conspiracy theory worthy of monthly History Channel documentaries. I simply don't buy that the US underreported its losses. If it did, where's the outcry from families seeking info on lost pilots? There isn't any. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, first -- the Korean war was a long time ago, so the survivors may have died off, too. This would reduce the outcry. Second, it's possible that the losses are accounted for, but not the manner of loss, whether accidental or as a result of enemy action.

Again, my main point is just that because a source is official, or whatever, doesn't make it accurate or reliable. Just for comparison the Patriot claims were originally something like 80% accuracy, but as time went by, the number was reduced to something like 30%, which is less than half the original.

Yet the 80% was an "official" number.

Too bad this thread has become so argumentative. It would have been interesting to discuss relative performance of the various forces. For example, one of my sources says that, if the Soviet pilots *alone* are compared to American pilots, the kill ratio is some 4:1 in favor of the Soviets. However, it doesn't back it up any way.

Slickun
06-21-2006, 02:51 PM
Arkasha, the records still exist. Family members still live (me for example).

Soviet pilots did not enjoy a 4-1 advantage if admitted losses are used. Only if their claims are. Some 100 F-86's were lost, about the same numbers of all other A/C as well. That's it, short of a conspiracy of epic, massive proportions.

I don't see this as argumentative, just facts. The only way to get around it is to say there is a conspiracy on the US side, that the USAF KNEW they were getting creamed, and basically did nothing but secretly cover it up.

So:

-More than 600 F-86's were in Korea, LOTS more, to cover continued ops whilst being slaughtered. Thus, assembly line and transportation data is falsified.
-Hundreds more F-86 pilots were lost, nearly ALL killed or spirited away to the Communist countries. We're talking HUNDREDS of men. Only some 15 were repatriated, a number agreed to by both sides. A few more rescued. ALL the rest, hundreds, killed or spirited away.
-Suvivors have been "gotten to" to keep quiet. The few F-86 pilots that survived, avoided death, never talked about their crushing defeat, and the USAF continues, falsely, to view the air war in Korea as a victory. My Dad would be very surprised, or he was a stupendous liar.
-The USAF's policy of only one F-86 wing for most of the early war, despite crippling and devastating losses, was simply to keep it quiet the US was getting hammered. Rather, they just kept, secretly, pouring F-86's, most to go down to MiGs, into the one in-country F-86 unit. Rather than reinforce, add units, they just kept pouring guys and planes into the sacrificial maw of the MiG's cannons! Same with all the UN forces! We got them to go along as well!
-The press was totally fooled, forever, to these happenings.

C'mon. The Soviets overclaimed by a factor of 7, the US by 1/3. Believe the records of the country doing the dying, not the claiming.

Kocur_
06-21-2006, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arkasha_1960:
Just for comparison the Patriot claims were originally something like 80% accuracy, but as time went by, the number was reduced to something like 30%, which is less than half the original.

Yet the 80% was an "official" number.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the sake of clarity:
Most of numbers quoted regarding Patriot batteries effciciency are... true - from different POVs! Patriots batteries in fact did intercept merely 45 of 93 fired Scuds - 48%. Worse: 96 Patriot missiles were fired against Scuds, so it must be less than half of that %, like 22%, right?
Well, not really!
In fact out of those 93 Scuds fired, 26 flew too far from their targets protected by Patriots to fire at them, 7 hit their targets (big area targets after all), but staying out of Patriot batteries range and 13 were fired before Patriot batteries were there! Only 47 Scuds were fired at by Patriot bateries and out of them 45 were intercepted. The trick is that firing salvos of missiles by SAM batteries is simply how they operate, so its not fair to count separate missiles - what should be counted are batteries salvos. So if one looks into details, he finds that Patiots efficiency vs. Scuds, that were fired at actually is 95% indeed.

horseback
06-21-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, my main point is just that because a source is official, or whatever, doesn't make it accurate or reliable. Just for comparison the Patriot claims were originally something like 80% accuracy, but as time went by, the number was reduced to something like 30%, which is less than half the original. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Korea was nothing like the First Gulf War. There was no TV cameraman waiting at base Ops for the pilots coming off a mission asking "How'd you do up there?" on live TV via satellite.

The Patriot accuracy issue is a can of worms; first consideration would be the belief of the operators that they 'got' the Scuds they fired on, and told the media just that, who turned around and told the world.

Second consideration is how a Scud 'kill' was reassessed after the war; Patriot was designed as an antiaircraft weapon, intended to explode in close proximity to a fast flying aircraft and disable or kill it with blast effect and shrapnel. Scuds, not being as vulnerable to blast and shrapnel, had to be 'hit' much more precisely by the Patriot, and after a few adjustments, it was thought that the Patriots were having a positive effect and taking out the majority of Scuds they appeared to hit or blasted with close proximity explosions. During the war, there was little time to make a definitive assessment of effectiveness, and the apparent results were good for morale.

Third consideration was entirely diplomatic; the Israeli factor. You may remember that Israel was being attacked regularly with Scudsonce the Coalition started its air attackes against Iraq, and the only thing that kept Israel from retaliating against Iraq directly was the American guarantee of protection with Patriot batteries.

Had the Patriots' effectiveness been in question, Israel would quite likely attacked Iraq itself (via Jordan's airspace), effectively breaking the Islamic countries away from the coalition formed to free Kuwait, and turned the war into a three sided shambles.

Patriots are now designed with at least short or medium ranged ballistic missiles intended as targets, and the 'word' inside the company that makes them is that they are vastly more reliable for hard kills on ballistic missiles than the original new issue systems of 15 years ago.

I don't believe that there was any intentional fraud involved on the parts of the Patriot crews or even the people higher up the chain of command; it was an awfully short war, and any serious examination would have lasted after the fighting was over in any case.

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
06-21-2006, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Or maybe just one, not exactly a the same... but he stated that it was common practice for americans to shoot at bailed out pilots...
He said him, or anyone in his regiment never did this... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shooting bailed out pilots over your own territory makes it harder to question them later.

Or you believe that it was only for ethical reasons they did not shoot them?

WWMaxGunz
06-21-2006, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Arkasha, the records still exist. Family members still live (me for example).

Soviet pilots did not enjoy a 4-1 advantage if admitted losses are used. Only if their claims are. Some 100 F-86's were lost, about the same numbers of all other A/C as well. That's it, short of a conspiracy of epic, massive proportions.

I don't see this as argumentative, just facts. The only way to get around it is to say there is a conspiracy on the US side, that the USAF KNEW they were getting creamed, and basically did nothing but secretly cover it up.

So:

-More than 600 F-86's were in Korea, LOTS more, to cover continued ops whilst being slaughtered. Thus, assembly line and transportation data is falsified.
-Hundreds more F-86 pilots were lost, nearly ALL killed or spirited away to the Communist countries. We're talking HUNDREDS of men. Only some 15 were repatriated, a number agreed to by both sides. A few more rescued. ALL the rest, hundreds, killed or spirited away.
-Suvivors have been "gotten to" to keep quiet. The few F-86 pilots that survived, avoided death, never talked about their crushing defeat, and the USAF continues, falsely, to view the air war in Korea as a victory. My Dad would be very surprised, or he was a stupendous liar.
-The USAF's policy of only one F-86 wing for most of the early war, despite crippling and devastating losses, was simply to keep it quiet the US was getting hammered. Rather, they just kept, secretly, pouring F-86's, most to go down to MiGs, into the one in-country F-86 unit. Rather than reinforce, add units, they just kept pouring guys and planes into the sacrificial maw of the MiG's cannons! Same with all the UN forces! We got them to go along as well!
-The press was totally fooled, forever, to these happenings.

C'mon. The Soviets overclaimed by a factor of 7, the US by 1/3. Believe the records of the country doing the dying, not the claiming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forget the entire NATO forces part of the coverup never saying anything about the mass
air attacks on them after the NATO fighters were pushed back due to huge losses. There was
really never millions of Chinese fighting there, it was all from Communist bombers and the
stories of 1000:1 attacks on NATO forces is all a huge lie that no NATO soldier ever said
different. The only reason that South Korea did not fall was because Communists felt sorry
for them and quit after they got sick of easy kills on US fighters and their bomber crews
decided they had all the training they needed.

berg417448
06-21-2006, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

I saw nowhere in the whole book any bad words american pilots...
Or maybe just one, not exactly a the same... but he stated that it was common practice for americans to shoot at bailed out pilots...
b </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez...that's ALWAYS the way it is put when it comes to the subject firing at parachutes. It is always the other guy who gets blamed but ,of course ,your side never did it! LOL! Do a little bit of searching and you can find documented exampls of that type conduct occurring on all sides of air battles.

Arkasha_1960
06-21-2006, 06:32 PM
Gents,

Thanks for the reasoned responses, I appreciate them. One thing you should know: I'm not saying the Soviets were 100% right, nor am I saying the Americans were 100% wrong. I just think that neither set of data should be construed as 100% accurate, for two reasons:

1) errors can and do occur every day. Somebody mistypes a number, or neglects to include one, and the error is embalmed and becomes part of the official record. No bad intent, just a mistake.

2) political considerations enter into the calculations. As people have rightly pointed out, the Soviets were "economical" with the truth; however, so was the other side. It was, after all, a war, and there were (and are) many "good" reasons for lying.

I personally have little doubt the Sabres did better than the MiGs, not least because American and allied pilots were better trained and more effective than the Chinese/NKAF pilots. Also, the Sabre was likely better quality than the MiG (I recall reading about problems like the MiG canopy allowing for condensation that froze at high altitudes, effectively blinding the pilot until he got to lower altitudes and was able to melt the ice).

However, it also has to be admitted that the Sabre was modified at least in part to deal with the threat the MiG posed to it. So maybe the fairest judgment is: both were formidable aircraft in their element, with good pilots in control. The Sabre was more refined and maneuverable, but its weapons were not as lethal as the twin 23mm and single 37mm cannon sported by the MiG.

Is one definitely superior to the other? I doubt it. It very much depends on the scenario (altitude, who has the advantage, pilot experience, etc.).

Slickun
06-22-2006, 07:54 AM
The UN side of the data undergoes continual updating. As new data comes in, KORWALD changes.

Mistakes are one thing, NO loss data from a war is 100% accurate. But to say there was a conspiracy to cover up nothing less than a crushing defeat is another.

The one thing the Saber did have over the MiG, that many of us just don't give its due when thinking about relative merits in a fighter, is its ability to fly and fight at much higher mach speeds than the MiG. Speed is life, but many of us get caught up in climb rates and turning circles.

At the heights the two planes mostly met and fought at, 30,000 plus, noses dropping and speeds climbing to high, transonic mach speeds, the Saber ruled.

anarchy52
06-22-2006, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
What I found interesting in the first post (I ignored most of the rest) is that they felt American pilots were worse because of 5 reasons:

"1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
2)Not aggressive.
3)Flying in small groups.
4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Soviets said same about LW pilots. K/D ratio was similar.

Slickun
06-22-2006, 12:58 PM
You realize that US pilots said the same things about the MiG pilots, especially number 2?

crazyivan1970
06-22-2006, 02:21 PM
Interesting summary by Popelyaev(commander of 196th regiment and author of this book):

Pilots of 196th regiment spend more time in combat over Korea then any other regiments.
During 10 months of operations in Korea regiment lost (KIA) 4 pilots, 6 pilots bailed out but returned home. 2 pilots made forced emergency landing outside of the base.
Regiment lost 10 Mig-15s, but shot down over 100 american planes.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and let the fun begin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

ploughman
06-22-2006, 02:59 PM
There can be only one explanation.

The hammering given to them by Soviet 'volunteer' pilots was a blow from which the air force of the Democratic Republic of North Korea was unable to recover.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kocur_
06-22-2006, 03:17 PM
There is another possible one: in Korea VVS overclaimed like they did in WW2, i.e. like 7-10 times...

crazyivan1970
06-22-2006, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
There is another possible one: in Korea VVS overclaimed like they did in WW2, i.e. like 7-10 times... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VVS overclaimed in WW2 7-10 times? LMAO!

faustnik
06-22-2006, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
There is another possible one: in Korea VVS overclaimed like they did in WW2, i.e. like 7-10 times... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Based on what?

Kocur_
06-22-2006, 03:40 PM
According to Robert Michulec, author of "Stalinowskie soko"y" ("Stalin's Falcons"), ISBN 83-86208-32-5:
VVS claimed 57.180 enemy planes total, 44.000 by fighters. Additional 20.000 were claimed by Soviet flak.
By author estimation LW lost in the Eastern Front about 20.000 planes to all causes, of which 8.000 to 12.000 could be downed by enemy action of any kind. Further author's estimation is that from those 4.000 to 6.000 could have been actually shot down by VVS fighters.


Anyone knows other numbers: please do post them.

crazyivan1970
06-22-2006, 03:48 PM
Kosur,
I dont know where this gentleman gets those numbers... but just as a small example.... most recent book about Pokrishkin... based on his notebooks, archives, etc. Estimated "kill count" is a little over 150 planes. But for many reasons, which are also described by the book they were not accounted for, nore they were claimed. Personally, in serveral hundreds memoirs and other books by GPW pilots that i`v read nobody ever came up with such numbers as 57,180 or 44,000 or whatever. But funny thing is....a little over 20,000 was lost by LW is what i read in those books. What is this author is trying to prove i dont know.

ojcar1971
06-22-2006, 05:14 PM
Popelyaev says PLANES, not Sabres. It include all kind of planes, not only fighters. Besides, it could be a few crack MIG squadrons and a lot of bad trained Chinese, North Korean and Soviet MIG squadrons. The average american pilot was better trained and this made the difference, because both planes were very similar.
I think all Air Forces on all wars overclaim and is very common mistake one plane model for another (sorry for my s**t englih)

Sergio_101
06-22-2006, 05:40 PM
Nov. 5 -- The N.Y. Times reports that total U.S. aircraft losses in Korea is 1,203 - 536 to the enemy, 667 from accidents. There were 324 enemy planes destroyed according to claims by Air Force and Navy pilots. The figures are based on Air Force reports as of Oct. 23 and Navy reports as of Oct. 1.

And I will add, the majority lost to the enemy
was to ground fire.

Sergio

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2006, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Hmmm.. just an excerpt from the book:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


For 10 months our regiment lost ten planes, shooting down most than hundred enemy planes.

This somewhat does not concur with so wildly proclaimed 100:1 than 10: than 6:1 kill ratio of americans in Korea...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the one is supposed to have to do with the other is only so much BS.
What has 'planes' shot down have to do with this mix and match kill ratio of F-86 pilots?

I don't see much about NK or Chinese or Russian bombers supporting any of their operations.
And yet I understand that prop Yaks were used at least in the start.

What does any smart@ss want to make of kill counts where one side uses almost exclusively
fighters and stays near home? Is that the actions of winners? I don't think so. Had the
MiGs been so highly successful as I think I keep reading then NATO troops would have been
bombed day and night, even in rear areas.

WWSensei
06-22-2006, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
You realize that US pilots said the same things about the MiG pilots, especially number 2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see a source on that please. I can easily agree that US pilots claimed MiG pilots were non-agressive. That's not an uncommon critique for any fighter pilot to make

However, I question US pilots claiming the other four attributes as a "weakness" since those four things are pounded into fighter pilots since WWI as the right way to fight.

I've flown with pilots who flew Korea (my UPT T-38 instructor had flown both Sabre's and F-100s) and Vietnam and the first Gulf War. I've flown with several pilots of various Western/NATO nations. I've known well over 100 fighter pilots and not once, ever, hear a single one of them ever claim that attacking out of the sun, attacking from a tactical advantage, flying with wingmen, or flying/engaging in superior numbers as a "weakness".

Those concepts are so fundamental to Western air combat doctrine they would only be viewed as strengths and anyone claiming an enemy was "inferior" for following those principles he would be laughed at openly as an idiot.

BfHeFwMe
06-22-2006, 06:32 PM
I wonder if they have the slightest remorse for leaving a lasting perfect example of a communistic horror state, with an economy based on gulags of death for the many. Could they, or would they support such an abomination today, knowing what we know now? So was it worth it, I've been to S. Korea and can definitly say, yeah!

SkyChimp
06-22-2006, 06:45 PM
1)Entering combat only with great odds in their favor.
I'm not sure that the USAF had the luxury of choosing to enter or not enter combat until odds were better. There were always too few Sabres in Korea, and the Communists were flying thousands of MiG sorties per month. The Sabres regularly entered combat when odds were in MiGs favor.

2)Not aggressive.
I've never heard a communist claim that American pilots weren't aggressive. I've heard the opposite a lot.


3)Flying in small groups.
Many times, that's the best the Sabres could do.


4)Will not engage without tactical advantage.
Silly to do otherwise.


5)Attacking only from the clouds or from the sun.
I'm sure that was a preferred method.

LEXX_Luthor
06-22-2006, 08:11 PM
There may be an interesting parallel here.

Facing a very poor kill ratio in China against the Flying Tigers, Japanese government media accused the Flying Tigers of cowardness for their dive by shooting tactics.

These were the correct tactics indeed.

Daiichidoku
06-22-2006, 09:10 PM
that sounds a lot like what i hear spit and yak pilots say tp 190 or 47 drivers, Lexx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

andiono
06-23-2006, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Kosur,
I dont know where this gentleman gets those numbers... but just as a small example.... most recent book about Pokrishkin... based on his notebooks, archives, etc. Estimated "kill count" is a little over 150 planes. But for many reasons, which are also described by the book they were not accounted for, nore they were claimed. Personally, in serveral hundreds memoirs and other books by GPW pilots that i`v read nobody ever came up with such numbers as 57,180 or 44,000 or whatever. But funny thing is....a little over 20,000 was lost by LW is what i read in those books. What is this author is trying to prove i dont know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meh VVS overclaimed by a large margin, most airforces overclaim by about 100% give or take.

lets look at kursk 1943 the defensive phase as STAVAK knew it and operation Zitedlle as the OKW knew it.

Luftwaffe 1 Air Division 5-15 july: 94 losses
VIII Aircorp 5-15 july: 99 losses
OKL recived 923 victory claims for the 5-15 July period.
(luftwaffe 1 air division and VIII aircorp were the two units commited to the combined Army group center and south atacks on the bulge)

VVS losses in the Kursk area 5-8 july : 459
VVS recived claims for 5-8 july of 878 German planes shot down.

Note that during the defensive phase VVS over claimes by a huge margin compared with okl losses over a longer period of time.

OKL losses are taken from their records. and VVS losses are taken from Grif Sekretnosti Snyat complied by Krivosheev's team which is a study undertaken upon soviet losses during the war period during the 90's using their own war time archives. 1993 p370. (my book is 1st ed) M.N Kizhevnikov work has a higher number of 566 VVS losses in the same period.

Tipo_Man
06-23-2006, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Interesting summary by Popelyaev(commander of 196th regiment and author of this book):

Pilots of 196th regiment spend more time in combat over Korea then any other regiments.
During 10 months of operations in Korea regiment lost (KIA) 4 pilots, 6 pilots bailed out but returned home. 2 pilots made forced emergency landing outside of the base.
Regiment lost 10 Mig-15s, but shot down over 100 american planes.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and let the fun begin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Looks like you missed previous pages of your thread...

I thing wellknown US-cause supporters are already disheartened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Again, here is the interesting study on Pepelaev's kills.
http://www.acepilots.com/korea/yevgeny.html

Slickun
06-23-2006, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
You realize that US pilots said the same things about the MiG pilots, especially number 2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see a source on that please. I can easily agree that US pilots claimed MiG pilots were non-agressive. That's not an uncommon critique for any fighter pilot to make

However, I question US pilots claiming the other four attributes as a "weakness" since those four things are pounded into fighter pilots since WWI as the right way to fight.

I've flown with pilots who flew Korea (my UPT T-38 instructor had flown both Sabre's and F-100s) and Vietnam and the first Gulf War. I've flown with several pilots of various Western/NATO nations. I've known well over 100 fighter pilots and not once, ever, hear a single one of them ever claim that attacking out of the sun, attacking from a tactical advantage, flying with wingmen, or flying/engaging in superior numbers as a "weakness".

Those concepts are so fundamental to Western air combat doctrine they would only be viewed as strengths and anyone claiming an enemy was "inferior" for following those principles he would be laughed at openly as an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Weakness" is your addition to my rather brief post.

Saber pilots flew TO the MiGs for the most part, not the other way around. The MiGs used their better ceiling to stay as high as possible, waiting for the right moment to swoop down on the F-86's.

They had more planes, flying shorter distances, and were able to outnumber the F-86's most of the time, flying higher, from a pre-made position of advantage.

Try "Sabers Over Mig Alley: The F-86 And the Battle for Air Superiority in Korea" by Werrell. A new book, it addresses many of the things we're talking about here.

Tipo Man, I'm thinking you just don't get it. You are still trying to make "claims" stick, rather than dealing with admitted losses.

You have also not addressed the POW situation, the problems with a conspiracy, the actual comportment of the war (why didn't the Commies ACT on their crushing of UN Air Power), and still focus on a very narrow front, trying to make impossible claims fit into admitted loss figures.

I see another tactic beginning to rear its head...that OK, maybe the Communists didn't down that many F-86's....it was OTHER planes, likr the F84.

Problem with that is there were way fewer losses of F-84, Mustang, P-80 and B-29's than F-86's to even BEGIN to make up the disparity. Unless, of course, there was a conspiracy there as well.

Of course, folks here are free to believe what they will.

Tipo_Man
06-23-2006, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


Tipo Man, I'm thinking you just don't get it. You are still trying to make "claims" stick, rather than dealing with admitted losses.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Obviously, I don't get it.

I provided you with data, guncam photos, both-side description of air-battles...
This is still not enough for...
My data is simply wrong.... It can't be...
Those damned communists performing so well.
I think your data is much more thrustworthy:
Your daddy has told you "he had beaten them".
So all of the data is must be tweaked to match this statement...

Kocur_
06-23-2006, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Personally, in serveral hundreds memoirs and other books by GPW pilots that i`v read nobody ever came up with such numbers as 57,180 or 44,000 or whatever. But funny thing is....a little over 20,000 was lost by LW is what i read in those books. What is this author is trying to prove i dont know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That VVS overclaimed far more badly than other major air forces?

Quick googling lead me to: http://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/officerroom/aces/stat_aces_rus.htm , which says, that VVS claims to have destroyed 57.180 German planes, which includes 39.500 kills by fighters and 4.500 by bombers and shturmoviks,
or
http://www.nkau.gov.ua/gateway/news.nsf/0/9F990096A81BC...2256FF9004242D3?open (http://www.nkau.gov.ua/gateway/news.nsf/0/9F990096A81BC969C2256FF9004242D3?open)
, which says that VVS destroyed 57.000 German planes: FA: 47.500, PVO 4.000, Soviet Navy 5.500. Of those, 44.000 German planes were supposedly killed in the air and 13.000 on the ground.

In another words it seems that its credible information, that VVS claimed to have killed about 44.000 German planes in the East Front in WW2.

Does anyone have numbers on German losses in the East according to Luftwaffe, to find out how many planes were actually lost to Soviet planes?

Naturally there are reasons for overclaiming by VVS in WW2: all it took to claim a victory was to shoot at enemy plane and have a witness willing to say, that a German plane was shot down. There was no more or less objective mean of verifing such claims available, for Soviet planes did not have gun cameras! There were commanders who demanded some proof of kills, like gen. Rudenko of 16AF (VA), who demanded to attach data plates from downed planes engines, but vast majority were very liberal in taking what a pilot and his witness had to say and granting them kills. Later in WW2, from mid-1943, staffs of higher level units (not regiments anymore) had power to verify claims, usually by seeking confirmation by ground unit. But the only reason not to approve claim as a confirmed victory was ground unit response that no German planes crashed in specified area - not reaching proper ground unit or lack of any information from them, was not a reason to reject the claim. Naturally claims of enemy planes downed on the other side of frontline could not be verified this way, so a witness was enough to get a kill. Another issue is nomenclature: there were very little claims of "damaged" enemy planes and there were no "probables"! There were only two kinds of claims: a certain one, i.e. a crash was reported and ¿о´б¸Ñ"Ñ"' i.e. claim of enemy plane being hit and damaged - both were classified as kills!
I suppose rules of granting kills were more reasonable in Korean war (MiG-15s had gun cameras) and since Soviet direct involvement was callisfied, there were no propaganda reasons to falsely increace number of kills and to "balance" own losses, like in WW2.
On less serious note: there is a thing common for Korean war and GPW: in both conflicts Soviet fighter pilots received money for kills. I suppose that fact that we get 100 points for killing a single engined plane, 200pts for twin engined etc, may have roots in GPW: since spring of 1942, to 'promote' killing LW bombers, VVS pilots were paid 1.000 rubels for a fighter kill but 2.000 for a bomber (in 1943 a Yak-7B cost 111.000 rubels, a liter of moonshine - 1.000 rubels, in 1944 a modest dinner in Kiev resaturant: cabbages and water with juice: 400-600 rubels).

Slickun
06-23-2006, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
There may be an interesting parallel here.

Facing a very poor kill ratio in China against the Flying Tigers, Japanese government media accused the Flying Tigers of cowardness for their dive by shooting tactics.

These were the correct tactics indeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've all been regaled with the fantastic Kill to Loss ratio of the Flying Tigers.

Well, there are a couple of recent books that examined the admitted losses of the Japanese units the Tigers faced, cross referenced with the Tigers' claims.

Turns out the Tigers did well, just not nearly so well as they claimed.

Now, what am I to make of this? Call the Japanese liars, and go strictly with Tiger claims, pilots that recieved bounties for their kills, much the same as the Russian pilots in Korea?

Or, realize that the Japanese records of who didn't return, and why, are far, far more accurate?

Tipo_Man
06-23-2006, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


Tipo Man, I'm thinking you just don't get it. You are still trying to make "claims" stick, rather than dealing with admitted losses.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Obviously, I don't get it.

I provided you with data, guncam photos, both-side description of air-battles...
This is still not enough for you.
My data is simply wrong.... It can't be...
Those damned communists performing so well.

I think your sources are much more thrustworthy:
Your daddy has told you "he had beaten them".
So all of the data is must be tweaked to match this statement... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tipo_Man
06-23-2006, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


Tipo Man, I'm thinking you just don't get it. You are still trying to make "claims" stick, rather than dealing with admitted losses.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Obviously, I don't get it.

I provided you with data, guncam photos, both-side description of air-battles...
This is still not enough for you.
My data is simply wrong.... It can't be...
Those damned communists performing so well.

I think your sources are much more thrustworthy:
Your daddy has told you "he had beaten them".
So all of the data must be tweaked to match this statement...

Slickun
06-23-2006, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


Tipo Man, I'm thinking you just don't get it. You are still trying to make "claims" stick, rather than dealing with admitted losses.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Obviously, I don't get it.

I provided you with data, guncam photos, both-side description of air-battles...
This is still not enough for you.
My data is simply wrong.... It can't be...
Those damned communists performing so well.

I think your sources are much more thrustworthy:
Your daddy has told you "he had beaten them".
So all of the data must be tweaked to match this statement... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, looks like you're having problems with "getting" how to post on these forums as well. Three, count em, THREE responses, all making fun of my Pop, and getting personal. None addressing questions I directed your way about some problems with Soviet/Commie claims in the Korean War. Insted we get a series of insults directed at my deceased father. You have no class.

You are officially on my list of posters not worth exchanging with.

tjaika1910
06-23-2006, 09:10 AM
I saw a documentry where a chinese ace as an old man sat in the cockpit of the Sabre. He as surpriced over the good visiability of the Sabre and found a better plane for the average pilot and the best ones. In contrary of popular belief on both sides before the war.

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2006, 09:54 AM
Tipo is onto the old tried and true formula, just repeat until 'true'.

50 grams of data mixed with 2 kilograms of innuendo... just takes time to inflate Tipo?

Really, you remind me of Rush Limbaugh back in the 90's. He had his 'facts' and a special
countdown to the total collapse of US economy from 1992 onwards. LOL, he was only ahead
of his time!

Tipo_Man
06-23-2006, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tipo is onto the old tried and true formula, just repeat until 'true'.

50 grams of data mixed with 2 kilograms of innuendo... just takes time to inflate Tipo?

Really, you remind me of Rush Limbaugh back in the 90's. He had his 'facts' and a special
countdown to the total collapse of US economy from 1992 onwards. LOL, he was only ahead
of his time! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it was you in fact who refused to argue with data, but instead call me names...

And my 50 grams are obviously more than what you can provide.

And Slickin,
I have a lot of troubles, other than posting here, but...
I told you.
It's never good to degrade your opponent abilities.
Because, if you lose, it turns out you are worse than him...

crazyivan1970
06-23-2006, 04:02 PM
Pepelyaev:

There is a russian saying "Nowhere people are lying as much as they do it at war and after the hunt" That applies to us and americans too.

****

Pretty deep aint it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
06-23-2006, 04:11 PM
I have no doubt in my mind that Pepalayev was one of the guys all countries produce that had things figured out in the air. No doubt. He was a killer, one of the guys that "The Ace Factor" by Mike Spick is all about.

I also watched an interview with him where he agreed that his own record was inflated, and that the US pilots were at least as well trained as the Soviet pilots.

WWSensei
06-23-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
You realize that US pilots said the same things about the MiG pilots, especially number 2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see a source on that please. I can easily agree that US pilots claimed MiG pilots were non-agressive. That's not an uncommon critique for any fighter pilot to make

However, I question US pilots claiming the other four attributes as a "weakness" since those four things are pounded into fighter pilots since WWI as the right way to fight.

I've flown with pilots who flew Korea (my UPT T-38 instructor had flown both Sabre's and F-100s) and Vietnam and the first Gulf War. I've flown with several pilots of various Western/NATO nations. I've known well over 100 fighter pilots and not once, ever, hear a single one of them ever claim that attacking out of the sun, attacking from a tactical advantage, flying with wingmen, or flying/engaging in superior numbers as a "weakness".

Those concepts are so fundamental to Western air combat doctrine they would only be viewed as strengths and anyone claiming an enemy was "inferior" for following those principles he would be laughed at openly as an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Weakness" is your addition to my rather brief post.

Saber pilots flew TO the MiGs for the most part, not the other way around. The MiGs used their better ceiling to stay as high as possible, waiting for the right moment to swoop down on the F-86's.

They had more planes, flying shorter distances, and were able to outnumber the F-86's most of the time, flying higher, from a pre-made position of advantage.

Try "Sabers Over Mig Alley: The F-86 And the Battle for Air Superiority in Korea" by Werrell. A new book, it addresses many of the things we're talking about here.

Tipo Man, I'm thinking you just don't get it. You are still trying to make "claims" stick, rather than dealing with admitted losses.

You have also not addressed the POW situation, the problems with a conspiracy, the actual comportment of the war (why didn't the Commies ACT on their crushing of UN Air Power), and still focus on a very narrow front, trying to make impossible claims fit into admitted loss figures.

I see another tactic beginning to rear its head...that OK, maybe the Communists didn't down that many F-86's....it was OTHER planes, likr the F84.

Problem with that is there were way fewer losses of F-84, Mustang, P-80 and B-29's than F-86's to even BEGIN to make up the disparity. Unless, of course, there was a conspiracy there as well.

Of course, folks here are free to believe what they will. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post wasn't an "addition" to your brief post. It was a response to your reply to my post--check the thread.

My answer was in based on the impression of your "brief" post that US pilots would claim the flying without wingmen, diving out of the sun etc would be a sign of weakness in the Russian/NK/Chinese pilots. Given my experience as a fighter pilot and my realtionships with other fighters pilots I find that hard to believe. I can believe they would say another pilot wasn't aggressive enough, but I've never hear done say attacking from advantage was a sign of weakness. That was the point I was trying to make.

If you read through the responses I think you'll see I'm actually supporting your position.

Slickun
06-23-2006, 05:12 PM
We are in agreeance. US pilots, mostly, felt the #1 problem, or weakness, with MiG drivers was lack of aggressiveness. Not all, mind you. US pilots had respect for the "Honchos".

joeap
06-23-2006, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Pepelyaev:

There is a russian saying "Nowhere people are lying as much as they do it at war and after the hunt" That applies to us and americans too.

****

Pretty deep aint it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, a cousin to the statement "truth is the first casualty of war." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-23-2006, 06:33 PM
Slickun:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We've all been regaled with the fantastic Kill to Loss ratio of the Flying Tigers.

Well, there are a couple of recent books that examined the admitted losses of the Japanese units the Tigers faced, cross referenced with the Tigers' claims.

Turns out the Tigers did well, just not nearly so well as they claimed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You may be right. Sounds good. I don't care about kill ratios because nobody knows the truth, ignoring Fanbois for either side. No matter the Flying Tiger/Japanese kill ratio, the Japanese did not like the Flying Tiger tactics, and they got hurt by these tactics, thus the Whining about cowardness in the media.

All I know is that somehow the MiGs chased the B-29s from the daytime sky over Korea, and the B-29s were escorted by F-86s. Granted, the F-86s didn't have the numerical advantage the P-51 escorts had over Germany, or the range and endurance to provide very wide cover sweeps (and lacked numbers for this role too). The MiGs weapons were designed for use against large bombers, and most Online dogfight shooter gamers would say that's a bad design for arcade dogfighting, but the (very rare) Online bomber players would know more about this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
06-23-2006, 08:37 PM
B-29's were escorted by F-84's and F-80's as well. None were successful in protecting the B-29's. It became obvious, very quickly, that interceptions by MiG-15's could not be stopped. It didn't take many losses of the precious B-29's to move them to nighttime. Only about 110 or so ever served in the FEAF.

One important win by the Communist side, no argument here.

And, in keeping with the US tradition, bomber gunners claimed a lot of MiGs downed, one B-29 claiming 5. Communist sources say they never lost a MiG to gunners, and I believe them, as they were the ones doing the dying.

According to Curtis LeMay's book "Superfortress" virtually all industrial targets in the North had been knocked out anyway. B-29's bombed airfields to keep Communist planes from staging south of the Yalu.

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2006, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Well, it was you in fact who refused to argue with data, but instead call me names...

And my 50 grams are obviously more than what you can provide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What 'facts' there are have been laid out. 10 months, over 100 planes for whole group and
this one pilot has most kills F-86's.

The innuendo is where you took you 'facts', US Khttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ratio is screwed up and false.

So for one side there is talking of one thing and from you there is another thing... Fact.

How many F-86's did his group down? How many did he down? There was 74 downed by official
count and room to say IIRC 130 on the outside. So these guys got every F-86 shot down or
90% of all possible? Or maybe they got more? Total F-86's claimed shot down by all
Communist (yeah right, never has been true Communist by definition of Marx but so what?)
forces in that war.

I don't argue for claims by NATO forces or by F-86 pilots. I also do not believe that kill
claims verified down to blood type of pilot prove dingus about the planes. MiG-15 was the
higher thrust to weight plane but known to be whippy due to the wings. It had the lower
critical mach speed while F-86 was +able+ to go supersonic without losing control.

Play the Rowan MA just to get a feel how that FM works vis AOA, swept wings and stall and
you might just see how precious an edge in stability and AOA is worth. That without saying
a thing about comparing planes by the sim itself which is a no-no.

I well remember the jet sims of the 80's and some of the 90's where Russian planes were all
crippled enough that any kid could beat as many as the sim would spawn. Big deal, those
sim were trash and only children or child-mind adults could believe them. They were arcade.
So what? Worst I remember even trying was 'Jetfighter' on 286.

Xiolablu3
06-23-2006, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
BAnd, in keeping with the US tradition, bomber gunners claimed a lot of MiGs downed, one B-29 claiming 5. Communist sources say they never lost a MiG to gunners, and I believe them, as they were the ones doing the dying.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 'auto gun turrets' on the B29's did not work fast enough to shoot down the Migs. They worked with the idea that you inputted various information, like the speed of your aircraft, and the speed of the attacking plane, wind etc and it was supposed to calculate the lead for you, however the guns could not traverse fast enough to shoot down Jet planes.

They were designed with prop aircraft in mind and the Migs just flew too fast.

Thats straight from the mouth a of a B29 pilot interview.

Another great quote he made was ' Flying the B29 was just like sitting in your front porch flying your house' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2006, 12:17 AM
How much lead is required for a plane flying nearly directly at you? How fast traverse?

I can easily understand poor data and not enough time to input or gun controller using
preset guesstimates and yes, not getting hits at all.

The thing about lead and traverse is that if a plane makes a long, low, slow approach on
a tank then even a tank main gun has a chance at the shot since angle to target changes
very little for both tank and plane.

Gunners get excited. Pilots get excited. And some are just glory hounds with state approval.
That goes for all, not just whoever is enemy.

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 01:13 AM
I nearly edited my post, but didnt htink anyone would nitpick that much :P Only joking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I guess the guy meant once the Mig got close. Obviously if a plane comes up straight dead 6, he is not going to be hard for the turret to shoot down.

However, I think he meant that most of the time the turrets were pretty ineffective, compared with WW2 when they were excellent.

You would think that most of the time the Migs would not fly straight down the turrets and try and present a tough target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe it wasnt just the traverse, maybe you could not put enough lead in the 'computer' (as he called it, but I dont think it could have been a real computer) for a fighter moving at 600-700mph

Sergio_101
06-24-2006, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I nearly edited my post, but didnt htink anyone would nitpick that much :P Only joking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I guess the guy meant once the Mig got close. Obviously if a plane comes up straight dead 6, he is not going to be hard for the turret to shoot down.

However, I think he meant that most of the time the turrets were pretty ineffective, compared with WW2 when they were excellent.

You would think that most of the time the Migs would not fly straight down the turrets and try and present a tough target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe it wasnt just the traverse, maybe you could not put enough lead in the 'computer' (as he called it, but I dont think it could have been a real computer) for a fighter moving at 600-700mph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys think of computers as a PC.
The "Computer(s)" for gun aiming in a B-29
were nothing but a mess of relays and a few
vacum tubes.
No monitors, no keyboards.

VERY primative at best.

As to shooting down Mig-15s with B-29s....
The B-29 "Command Decision" was a "bomber ace"
with five or more Mig-15 kills.

B-29s in Korea were anything but precious.
They were flown to the bone yard in huge numbers
before and after Korea.
The USAF was not worried about those planes.
They were more concerned about the crews.

I doubt the 5 kill tally for "Command Decision".
BUT I had a High School Meterology teacher
that was a USAAC/USAF bombadier in WWII and Korea.
He said that he saw at least one Mig-15 shot
down by his tail gunner over Korea.
The whole bomber crew fought for space
at the windows to watch it fall.
There was a chute.
I do not remember if he was aboard "Command Decision".
And I can no longer ask him..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
He is NOT on the crew list at the USAF Museum site.

Sergio

Slickun
06-24-2006, 06:18 AM
FEAF was only able to get some 110-115 B-29's TOTAL to fly in the Korean War. This per Curtis LeMay in his book "Superfortress". That is all the USAF ever made available to them. The B-29 was being phased out of the inventory, and there weren't that may world wide.

They were precious to the FEAF. This is an important thing to remember when one talks about B-29 losses. It didn't take many to prod the FEAF to make night missions the norm.

VERY interesting story about watching the MiG go down! How do we cross reference that with admitted losses by the Soviets? Perhaps they have some holes as well as the UN? Maybe a MiG that didn't come back due to unknown causes? BTW, the fuselage of "Command Decision" is on display at the USAF Museum in Wright-Patterson AFB. It is set up so you can walk through it in an indoor setting. Very cool.

This was fairly common with the LW. A guy would be lost, no one sure why, but he was last seen rolling into the Boeings, the assumption being the gunners got him, but no one really sure.

SkyChimp
06-24-2006, 11:35 AM
Slickun, AFAIK the Russians don't have anything like KORWALD and have only admitted numbers, but not circumstances, of MiG losses in combat.

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2006, 11:42 AM
If Russia had not been such a free and open-information society back then I would have trouble
taking those reports at face value.

Slickun
06-24-2006, 12:25 PM
SC.

No breakdown by the Soviets? Very interesting.

SkyChimp
06-24-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
SC.

No breakdown by the Soviets? Very interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK. Given their denial of involvement for 40+ years, I'd think a database like KORWALD would have been impossible (impermissible). Constructing one now may be equally impossible.

ploughman
06-24-2006, 04:21 PM
Is there any anecdotal evidence from US pilots etc., that losses were hidden and lost aircraft were written off? It's generally pretty hard in a relatively free society to hide such things and over time, doubly so, with the end of the Cold War and the warriors invovled coming to the autumn of their lives when they're more inclined to set the record straight and so on. Is there anything to indicate that the stats may've been 'massaged?'

In the absence of this I'd really be inclined to believe the KORWALD results as being pretty much on the ball.

Sergio_101
06-24-2006, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Is there any anecdotal evidence from US pilots etc., that losses were hidden and lost aircraft were written off? It's generally pretty hard in a relatively free society to hide such things and over time, doubly so, with the end of the Cold War and the warriors invovled coming to the autumn of their lives when they're more inclined to set the record straight and so on. Is there anything to indicate that the stats may've been 'massaged?'

In the absence of this I'd really be inclined to believe the KORWALD results as being pretty much on the ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I grew up with parents, uncles, friends and relitives
in the military in WWII and Korea.

Never heard a word about conspiracy.

In America, people will talk.
There has never been any scuttlebutt about
hidden losses.

Now, there are "Black projects". Some aircraft and losses
are in fact hidden. But not hundreds of losses.

Sergio

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Is there any anecdotal evidence from US pilots etc., that losses were hidden and lost aircraft were written off? It's generally pretty hard in a relatively free society to hide such things and over time, doubly so, with the end of the Cold War and the warriors invovled coming to the autumn of their lives when they're more inclined to set the record straight and so on. Is there anything to indicate that the stats may've been 'massaged?'

In the absence of this I'd really be inclined to believe the KORWALD results as being pretty much on the ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was watching aprogram just yesterday with a SR 71 Blackbird pilot where he had to bail out the Blackbird when the onboard computer failed and he lost all control.

Some farmers wanted to take him back to his plane wreckage, but he told them it was an F105 with a nuclear weapon onboard and they should get out of there quick. The ploy worked.

The official line is that they have never lost a SR 71 and it is the most reliable plane to have ever seen service, and a technical marvel which has had no problems - but his is only because any accidents are totally covered up.

This guy was the actual pilot, I still have it on video, I can get his name if anyone doubt this.


Not sure if this sort of thing would extend to war losses, but if its against the 'hated' communists' anything is possible I would think.

EDIT : The Sr 71 crash is the top one of this page, the guy was called Ken Collins :-

http://area51specialprojects.com/crashes.html

berg417448
06-24-2006, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[

The official line is that they have never lost a SR 71 and it is the most reliable plane to have ever seen service, and a technical marvel which has had no problems - but his is only because any accidents are totally covered up.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no official line that an SR-71 has never been lost. The official line is that no SR-71 has ever been shot down. Quite a difference.

SR-71 crashes from accidents are well documented through the years.

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/losses.php

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/sr-timeline/srtl60.html

Slickun
06-24-2006, 09:29 PM
The USAF reported literally thousands of losses to accidents in WW2 and Korea.

ElAurens
06-25-2006, 12:24 AM
SkyChimp 1

Tipo_Man 0


Game over.

Sergio_101
06-25-2006, 09:39 AM
Roughly 50% of the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 fleet has
been lost over the many years of operation.

There have been no admitted shoot down(s).

Sergio

Ruy Horta
06-25-2006, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You forget the entire NATO forces part of the coverup never saying anything about the mass
air attacks on them after the NATO fighters were pushed back due to huge losses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's that NATO talk?!

Sergio_101
06-25-2006, 01:49 PM
air attacks on them after the NATO fighters were pushed back due to huge losses.[/QUOTE]

What's that NATO talk?![/QUOTE]

Yes, I noticed that.
It was supposedly a UN war.
The Russians were supposedly on the UN side http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NATO had nothing to do with it.

Sergio

LEXX_Luthor
06-25-2006, 05:29 PM
101:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Russians were supposedly on the UN side http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the Russians were on the "other" side of the first United Nations Civil War.

101:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Roughly 50% of the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 fleet has
been lost over the many years of operation.

There have been no admitted shoot down(s). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
More important -- no claimed shoot downs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Granted, its theoretically possible, however unlikely, that one got damaged by a SAM maybe, and at Mach 3 left the combat area well before crashing, or got wrote off as an operational loss "accident" after landing. We did that alot in Korea. One early A-12 collected an S-75 warhead/body fragment over Vietnam but returned safely, 1968 I think.

Sergio_101
06-25-2006, 06:18 PM
No shoot down or so much as a hit has been admitted to.
Officially there was never a A-12.
The CIA flew the A-12 and there is no mention
of them at the USAF Museum site.
The A-12 was flown by the CIA only and was the
predecessor to the YF-12A and SR-71/B-71.
Yes, in fact, there were A-12s.

Perhaps there was a hit over Vietnam, or where ever for
that matter. We will NEVER know.

Hitting a plane going MACH3+ is not easy.
Your missle may go MACH5, but it has to climb
to an altitude and run the plane down before it
runs out of fuel.
To add to the problem is the poor RADAR return
from the SR-71.
Not quite stealth, but they needed a transponder
to be picked up by RADAR when it was desired.

I have been reading KORWALD line for line.
The B-29 losses were similar to those over japan during WWII.
Most were for operational accidents.
Very few were for healthy planes getting shot down.

Mosr F-86's thet were written off as lost to Migs
actually returned to be written off after landing.
Those are not kills.

When taken at face value, Sabres that were shot
down outwright, the kill loss comes closer to the
USAF's original claim of 14:1 !!!!!!
It's a tedious read to weed through all that information.

Sergio

berg417448
06-25-2006, 06:26 PM
According to the SR-71 timeline link I posted earlier:

30 Oct 1967

Dennis Sullivan flying an A-12 mission over North Vietnam had 6 missiles launched against him, 3 detonated, on post flight inspection, they found a small piece of metal from missile imbeded in lower wing fillet area (LSW)

Slickun
06-25-2006, 07:53 PM
An A-12 is on display.

It is on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier moored in the Hudson River, New York City, for all to see.

WWMaxGunz
06-25-2006, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You forget the entire NATO forces part of the coverup never saying anything about the mass
air attacks on them after the NATO fighters were pushed back due to huge losses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's that NATO talk?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, errrr, not exactly UN either as USSR was UN member.
All the major participants at stopping the incursion were also NATO, it's easier for me to
keep it straight. UN has no balls, errr teeth (that's it), NATO does.

JG53Frankyboy
06-26-2006, 03:35 AM
well, the UdSSR took not part "officialy" at the Koren War, so...................

Sergio_101
06-26-2006, 05:17 PM
Seems to me, from memory, that Soviet troops
were in fact sent to "fight" on the UN side.
I don't remember if any were "used".

Soviet denials were empty, the USAF, ARMY and NAVY
were monitoring all Communist radio commuications
There was never any doubt of the true Soviet intent.

Sergio

joeap
06-27-2006, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You forget the entire NATO forces part of the coverup never saying anything about the mass
air attacks on them after the NATO fighters were pushed back due to huge losses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's that NATO talk?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, errrr, not exactly UN either as USSR was UN member.
All the major participants at stopping the incursion were also NATO, it's easier for me to
keep it straight. UN has no balls, errr teeth (that's it), NATO does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No just because many of the members were NATO, NATO was not involved as an organisation. There were also non-NATO members like Australia for example and the UN flag was used.

Blutarski2004
06-27-2006, 06:58 PM
Very cool and interesting document on F86 versus MiG15 on the web - Declassified USAF report.

Go here - http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/sabrevsmig.asp

SkyChimp
06-27-2006, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Very cool and interesting document on F86 versus MiG15 on the web - Declassified USAF report.

Go here - http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/sabrevsmig.asp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's one of the books that came with the game MiG Alley. It's actually a copy of a British report.

The document was written during the war without the benefit of having a MiG-15 to examine or test. All information contained therein is anecdotal. There are some glaring errors (albeit in good faith):

The document states accelerated stall characteristics were about the same for both aircraft, which turned out to be untrue. The Sabre had far superior stall characterisitcs, and the stall characterisitcs of the MiG were deemed to be downright dangerous.

The Sabre was found in side-by-side comparisons to be more than marginally superior in a dive.

The report states the MiG and Sabre had roll rates that were about equal. That actually turned out to be very untrue. The MiG had a "best" roll rate of about 90 degrees per second, the Sabre's topped 240 degrees per second.

The references to unexplainable manueverability improvements for the MiG probably weren't due to any design improvements - the report was written during a period when Soviet pilots were flying a large protion of MiG sorties (which would have been unknown at the time).

LEXX_Luthor
06-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Very interesting....

Page 23:; <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
136. The Flight "line personnell" have, after long practice, developed a speedy...

~ http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/F86vsMig/sabrevmig13.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Page 24::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...routine for refuelling and turning around aircraft. One F86 can be turned round in 17 minutes and 12 F86s in 60 minutes. This includes complete servicing, re-arming and the installation of two new drop tanks. Five bowsers are used to obtain the above figures. Often new drop tanks are already in place before the pilot has got out of his aircraft from the previous mission.



~ http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/F86vsMig/sabrevmig14.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There, I'm done now.

BfHeFwMe
06-27-2006, 08:16 PM
What possible mission profile could an A-12 fly over Veitnam? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Last I saw of the stripped airframes they were sitting on the ground and on 55 gallon drums at Twenty-nine Palms airstrip in the desert weeds. Basically were trashed out piles of junk. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

berg417448
06-27-2006, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
What possible mission profile could an A-12 fly over Veitnam? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's one:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st28.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st28.pdf)

Slickun
06-29-2006, 08:11 PM
Saber pilots reported that a scissors put the MiG out in front in a couple of banks.

Clown_Clown
07-01-2006, 02:26 AM
Being late to this thread. However, I want to add a little bit of fuel to the discussion. Basically, the Russian and Chinese Claims were exaggerated. There were less than 700 F-86s cycling through Korea during the Korean War. The total loss (due to all causes) were around 230. Here is a small article I wrote some months ago. I was trying to look at the communists' claims from a new angle.

------

F-86 POWs and Communist Air Victories in the Korean War

I have recently come across The Korean War: Declassified Documents from
Archives in Russia. It was compiled and translated by Shen, Zhi-Hua.
Mr. Shen is an independent researcher in China. He went to the Russian
archives and had done quite a research. Some of the documents in the
book were not previously available in the West. However, Mr. Shen could
not get it published in China and thus turned to the Academia Sinica in
Taiwan. The book (actually in three volumes) was published in 2003.
ISBN 9570671-990-9. Unfortunately, it was in Chinese, not English.

Most of the Soviet documents in the book were about the interactions
between NK and Soviet, only a few were about China and Soviet. My guess
was that Mr. Chen withheld some more sensitive materials to publish in
the future. It was understandable given the circumstance. Still, it
reveals some interesting data that is worthy of every penny it costs.

We have known that during the "Honcho" period VVS 303rd IAD and 324th
IDA had played important roles. They left the Korean Theater in early
1952. There was a report on December 9th, 1951 in Mr. Shen's book,
talking about the VVS pilots' up-to-date air victories. It may shed some
lights about their performance (at least from VVS point of view).

The title of the report was: "S. M. Shtemenko's report to A. N.
Poskrebyshev about VVS victories, 1951/12/09" (No. 465, p. 1135).
And the following is my own translation from Chinese.

======

To Comrade Poskrebyshev:

Here I am replying to your previous inquiry. During the combat
operations from 1950/11/01 to 1951/12/06, our air force and anti-
aircraft artillery troops have shot down 569 enemy aircrafts.

Our fighter units shot down 510 aircrafts, including:

40 B-29
1 B-26
2 B-45
8 F-94
132 F-84
172 F-86
101 F-80
22 F-51
32 Meteor-4

Our AAA units shot down 59 aircrafts.

We lost 63 MiG-15s and MiG-15bs, and 30 pilots. AAA units had lost 29
and another 53 injuries.

Shtemenko
1951/12/09

======

A. N. Poskrebyshev was Aleksandr Nikolajewitsch Poskrebyshev, Stalin's
personal secretary. S. M. Shtemenko was Serge Matveevich Shtemenko, the
Chief of the General Staff then.

It was an interesting report. We knew that there was only the 4th Wing
in Far East during this period. There were less than 90 F-86s in the
Wing and only half of them were stationed in Korea (the rest were in
Japan). The VVS victories over F-86 could be nothing but overly
exaggerated, as well as the other kills.

More interestingly, the Soviet high command probably didn't buy it,
either. They might have asked for an investigation. Because, just a
little bit over a month later, the Soviet General Advisor to NKPA, Lt.
Gen. Razuvaev sent Shtemenko a new report.

"Lt. Gen. V. N. Razuvaev's report to S. M. Shtemenko about U. S.
Aircraft loss, 1952/01/11", (No. 469, pp. 1141-1143):

======

... according to NKPA Intelligence Divison's interrogation results of
the 80 captured pilots in 1951, the majority of the losses of the
enemy's air force was caused by the ground fires. Most of the enemy
pilots considered the major threat to them was the ground fires,
instead of the opposing air forces.

Among the interrogated pilots, 72 of them were shot down by the ground
fires. There were only 8 pilots downed by the opposing air forces.

For example:

There were 82 aircrafts on USS Bon Homme Richard deployed in Japan
Sea. 50 were lost during the period of 5 months (from 1951/06/01 to
11/01). 15 of the loss were due to the landing accidents. 35 of them
lost to the ground fires (according to Ensign Gerald C. Canaan).

Enemy's 135th Wing (F-84) lost 48 aircrafts from June to December of
1951. The montly losses were as the following:

AAA Air-to-air
June 4
July 4
August 4
December 1 1

The Wing lost 35 aircraft in September, October and November. Because
the POW, Lt. Robert Carman was not with the unit during the period (he
was shot down on Dec. 5th), he did not know the causes of the losses.

Enemy's 40th Wing (F-84) lost 30 aircrafts to the ground fires since
April 20th to September 17th. It did not lose any to the opposing air
forces.

Enemy's 4th Wing (F-86) lost 8 aircrafts to NKPAF (note: it actually
meant VVS) during March-June, 1951.

The above facts indicated that the most of the losses of the USAF's F-
51, F-80, and F-84 were caused by the ground AAA. The reason was that
these aircrafts kept at the lower altitudes during their attacks. The
aircrafts of NKPAF and CPVAF used to fly at higher altitudes.
Accroding to these POWs, they did not pose as any threat.

There were fewer losses of F-86 Sabers and B-86s, because they stayed
at the higher altitudes that the ground fires could not reach.

Razuvaev

1952/01/11

======

I think everyone can easily make a conclusion about what these two
reports revealed.

However, while reading the second report, it occured to me that the
number of the captured US pilots might be helpful for us to gauge the
"kills" in the Korean air war. What does that mean?

Look at the Soviet numbers. It was generally cited that VVS lost 335
MiGs in combat, with about 120 pilots killed. It meant the survival
rate of the VVS MiG pilots was about 62% ( (335-120) / 335 = 61.4%).
Chinese records indicated about 224 MiGs were shot down and 98 MiG
pilots were killed (not including the 168 "other causes"). The survival
rate was about 56% ((224-98) / 224 = 56.2%).

For the Soviet and Chinese pilots, if they "punched out", they could
expect to land withing the friendly territory and returned to the flight
line safely. For the F-86 pilots, it was not the same. If they got
their feet "wet", they had a good chance to be rescued by the efficient
S&R organization. If they had to parachute out in North Korea or even
China, they were probably doomed to become a POW. Unfortunately, they
could not control when and where to get shot down.

Thompson & McLaren listed 231 F-86s lost to all cuases, 112 pilots dead
or missing, and 26 repartriated from the POW camps. The survival rate
was about 52% ((231-112) / 231 = 51.5%). If we look at the number of
the captured pilots. It was amazingly low, only about 11%. It meant
that most of the surviing F-86 pilots could manage to get their
airplanes over water and thus got rescued after parachuting. If they
got shot down and the Soviet and CCF could "confirm" such claims, then
how could they still manage to reach the sea? I think, for anyone who
believes in the VVS' claim of 650 F-86s shotdown, they better look up
this POW number and come up with A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION.

BTW, in "Sabre Pilot pick-ups, Operational Contributions to Air Superiority
in Korea," (Air Power History Spring 2002), Dr. Forrest Marion of Air Froce
Historical Research Agency provided a list of F-86 pilots who got picked up
by the air rescue units stationed on the NK coastal islands. There were
about 40 names on the list, I believe.

J.H.

Clown_Clown
07-01-2006, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
One important win by the Communist side, no argument here.

And, in keeping with the US tradition, bomber gunners claimed a lot of MiGs downed, one B-29 claiming 5. Communist sources say they never lost a MiG to gunners, and I believe them, as they were the ones doing the dying.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although B-29 gunners' claims were certainly exaggerated, they did get some MiGs. From the Russian pilots' memoirs in the recent years, there were at least two MiG-15s lost to B-29 gunners. One MiG-15 were damaged on Black Tuesday and the Soviet pilot had to bail out in the way back to the airfield. And, the leader of a CPVAF Squadron perished when he lead an attack on B-29s. His MiG was down on a mud flat and became the alleged target of an UN salvage operation.