PDA

View Full Version : Soviet aces in Korea sky



Chevan
02-17-2007, 01:49 PM
Do somebody hear about particiation of Soviet fliers in the Korea in 1950-53?

32Bravo
02-17-2007, 01:56 PM
Yes, it's been quite well documented in Stalins Secret War (the name might be inaccurate?). Although the Soviets had their aces, many were shot down by the USAF. Also covers the incarceration of USAF Sabre pilots in the Soviet Union, where they were interogated for information on the Sabre. Sadly for them, as their being the Soviet Union was such a huge secret, they were never returned home after the war.

Chevan
02-17-2007, 02:04 PM
Recently the Russian Gerneral Staff of Army declassified the data about the participation of Soviet aces in Korea. This is quite amazing information IMO.
http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/skyknight.html
Its noticed that since 1950-53 the soviet had conducted 1872 sky combats and shoted down 1 106 american aircrafts ( 650 of them were the F-86 "Sabre"). Soviet loss - 335 fighters.Mig-15
The highest score Soviet pilot is Sutyagin Nikolay Vasiljevich - 21 victories.( 15 of them were Sabres)
http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/foto/sutyagin.jpg
BTW the famouse soviet WW2 ace Ivan Kojedub also took part in the preparation of fliers groups in the Korea. He didn't took part in the combats .
http://www.airforce.ru/awm/korea/Image7.gifhttp://www.airforce.ru/awm/korea/Image8.gif
Guncamera of Mig-15 3 march of 1953. Shoting down the F-86

Chevan
02-17-2007, 02:06 PM
Although the Soviets had their aces, many were shot down by the USAF. .

What are you talking about?

32Bravo
02-17-2007, 03:11 PM
Sorry, Chevan, I have no written references and am going from what I have read and seen on TV documentories in the past. However, I rather think 335 Mig 15s (if those figures are correct) could be considered many.

Panzerknacker
02-17-2007, 04:28 PM
I think that the best was Yevgeny Pepelyayev who shot down 19 US planes over "MiG Alley".

32Bravo
02-17-2007, 04:59 PM
Well, if you were in command of the Soviet 'mission' to Korea and you had lost 335 of your Migs to American and British fighters, wouldn't you want to tell 'Uncle Joe' that you had killed twice as many of their planes?

Chevan
02-18-2007, 09:43 AM
I think that the best was Yevgeny Pepelyayev who shot down 19 US planes over "MiG Alley".
Sory mate the Y.Pepelyayev was the second right after the Sutyagin ( 21 victories)
http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/foto/pepelaev.jpghttp://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/foto/pepelaev.gif

The Pepelyaev and his Mig
The list of best soviet aces is here
http://www.avia-hobby.ru/publ/sovaces/sovaces_5053.html
1.Sutyagin ( 21 victories)some sources calls 22 victories.
2.Pepelyaev(19)
3.Shykin and Oskin (15)
4.Shebestov (13)
5.Smorchkov (12)
......

Chevan
02-18-2007, 09:55 AM
Sorry, Chevan, I have no written references and am going from what I have read and seen on TV documentories in the past. However, I rather think 335 Mig 15s (if those figures are correct) could be considered many.
Sure 335 is many who is doubt. Like and 650 Sabres.

I don't wish to overstimate here the soviet aces and disparage the americans pilot.
I just found the statistic of soviet victories ans loses are very interesting.
I wish to notice you here i will considered only Soviet pilot, not the N/Korean and China ( which also fought on the Mig-15 and had a much less medium skill of combat experience.
They had a more rate of losses from the US fighters.

Cheers.

Panzerknacker
02-18-2007, 10:21 AM
Sory mate the Y.Pepelyayev was the second right after the Sutyagin ( 21 victories)


Thanks for the correction.



I wish to notice you here i will considered only Soviet pilot, not the N/Korean and China ( which also fought on the Mig-15 and had a much less medium skill of combat experience.
They had a more rate of losses from the US fighters



No question that is the key of the losses, the korean pilots probably were ride mules before get in the Mig-15 cockpit.

792 MIg were claimed as destroyed by the USAF.

Chevan
02-18-2007, 02:03 PM
792 MIg were claimed as destroyed by the USAF.
Well this is look like true.
But from this number of Mig only 335 were piloted by the soviets flyers.

Certainly compare the leve of Chinas r Korean pilots with americans pilots is sensless.
But i wish to say there were a own Korean aces
For instance Kan Jon Duk http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/foto/kanyokduk.jpg
Who shoted down 10 enemies aircrafts since 1950-53. But this is already another thread.

BTW Panzercnaker did you hear about "Black Tuesday of Strategic Command" ( 23 october of 1951) the combat where groupe of 44 Mig-15 had meeted the large groupe of B-29 escorted by F-80 and shoted 13 B-29 and 3 F-80, soviet loses was 1 (!!!) Mig-15?

32Bravo
02-18-2007, 02:30 PM
Do not wish to Pooh-Pooh on anyones parade chaps, but check this out:



Review of archived and previously classified documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 disputes the numbers of claims by U.S. pilots, stating that the VVS lost only 345 MiGs.[citation needed] In turn the Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 1,300 U.N. aircraft including more than 650 Sabres. However, USAF records revealed that there were only about 660 Sabres deployed to the Korean theater in the entire war. This fact makes the Soviet claims highly dubious. USAF records also show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat. Many air engagements are corroborated by both sides, but with conflicting claims of kills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86_Sabre

Chevan
02-18-2007, 03:43 PM
Do not wish to Pooh-Pooh on anyones parade chaps, but check this out:


Actualy Bravo during the Cold war it was a common tend to exceed its own victories and reduce the enemies. Its' not surprising together with common war there were a information war too.
For instance http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/sutyagin.html

Until now in THE USA they attempt to touch up the total of war. In the Encyclopedia of aviation (New York, 1977 ) it is noted that in all American pilots in the time of war biased 2.300 "communists" aircraft (USSR, China and PDRK ), the loss BY THE USA and their allies - 114. Relationship - 20:1. It is imposing?
However, the most serious American specialists even in the 1950 yy, when total losses it was hide difficultly (see the book "AirForces - the decisive force in Korea", Toronto - New York - London, 1957 ) they noted that USAF only in the combat struggles lost about 2.000 aircraft, loss of "cominists" aircraft they then evaluated more modestly - approximately into 1.000 aircraft. However, these numbers are distant from the truth.
so 2300....
then 1000....
now already 729 ( as it said honest Panzerknacker).....
You could easy find the contradactions dear Bravo.
Moreover today in the Russain archives was opened the datas of loses of the both China's and N.Koreans Mig-15 - 231 only was shot down by the UN airforces.
So you could calculate the total loses of Mig-15 in Korea- 335+231 = 566 (!!!)
So as could you see american datas could be easy refuted by the Russian archive datas.
So where is true? ;)

The poblems of WIKI article is that it based mostly on the Cold war datas which as we have see softly saying not all times objective.
The Russian Archives were opened after the Cold war ended in 1993-96 and i don't see any reason to doubt in material ( simply becouse i don't see the reason to falsify it today).
I could admit the figure of 650 hited F-86 is not correct ( it's not easy right to define the model of hited fighter through the gun camera). But honestly speaking i strongly doubt in the figures of total loses of 224 F-86s in Korea which you take from Wiki too ( and as you know Wiki is not the first-hand sources).
May you show us another source. Could we learn the true?

Cheers.

Panzerknacker
02-18-2007, 03:54 PM
One thing is to claim 792 aircraft...and other is actually shot down that number,the real figure was lower.

some link with helpful info.

http://www.korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html

http://www.korean-war.com/AirChronology.html

Chevan
02-18-2007, 04:09 PM
Thanks a lot mate for the links.
As could we see in anyway the UN forces lost in at least 3 times more arcrafts then the USSR/China/PDRK and this is characterly.
Moreover as could you se the figures of total lost F-86 in you source is 275 but in Wiki was called "only 224".
This fact just proved in US even today are not known real figures of lost in Korea.

Cheers.

32Bravo
02-18-2007, 04:19 PM
If you find sources unreliable, then why not look for motive?

Considering American losses and loss of face, accross the whole spectrum of their forces during this war, why bother to cover up the number of planes lost?

As I previously implied, is it not feasible that the Soviets invented the high kill rate against the Sabre in order to justify their own losses and avert any punishment for their incompetence.

I did see a TV documentary on this subject in recent months. In the main, it was comparing the merits of the two aircraft. However, it did discuss the Soviet contribution. One of the things remarked on was how the skills of the North Koreans had suddenly increased. That was when the American pilots first began to suspect they were flying against Soviets. The previous kill ratios for opposing sides were not refuted. The kill ratios (and the disappearance of downed American pilots) were a part of the reason that the comparisons were being made between the two aircrafts.

In the end, it's a matter of faith. One either accepts the information or not. When there is conflicting information - you pays your money and you takes your choice!

Panzerknacker
02-18-2007, 10:24 PM
Moreover as could you se the figures of total lost F-86 in you source is 275 but in Wiki was called "only 224".
This fact just proved in US even today are not known real figures of lost in Korea.



I have to agree, they probably didnt, Not a single source agree with the other :shock: , check this in spanish, just 184 F-86 lost by every cause and 792 Migs claimed as destroyed, the USAF calculate that the actual figure of MIg destroyed were 40-45 % of the claims.

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/930/imagen8gara1.jpg



did see a TV documentary on this subject in recent months. In the main, it was comparing the merits of the two aircraft. However, it did discuss the Soviet contribution. One of the things remarked on was how the skills of the North Koreans had suddenly increased. That was when the American pilots first began to suspect they were flying against Soviets.


You mean the National Geographic TV show ?
I saw those, very good one.

Chevan
02-19-2007, 01:38 AM
If you find sources unreliable, then why not look for motive?

The motives is obvious IMO - the Cold war. Don't need to repeat at you that during the war the information of loses had a political and propogandic effect. Thererofre it hard to consider it objectively.
Look for instance to the Battle of Britain in 1940-41 where the official figures of of both Germans ans Britains aircrafts were discriminated in TIMES. Just after the war althougt we don't know the exact figures but analisys of some facts let us to conclude the Britain loss less aircrafts then the Germans.


Considering American losses and loss of face, accross the whole spectrum of their forces during this war, why bother to cover up the number of planes lost?

As I previously implied, is it not feasible that the Soviets invented the high kill rate against the Sabre in order to justify their own losses and avert any punishment for their incompetence.

I have no idea what do you mean as "Soviets invented the hight kill rate".
I have to agre the 650 hited Sabres is not correct figure ( as i said its hard to discern Sabre from the simular fighter for instance Shooting Star from the distance about 700-400 metres through bad quality Gun camera obgective). But the total figure of hited UN aircraft - 1 106 is very close to the true, becouse it confirmed by the official US datas.
Look for instance at the Panzerknacker's source.
The UN lost only Jet fighters : 275 Sabres + 298 F-80 + 42 Meteors = 615
This is MORE then all losted Mig-15 in Korea - 566 from the Russian archive datas.
The total lost of UN is about 3 times more (!!!) then the all aircrafts of USSR/CHINA/DPRK
This is obvious thing.
Certainly not the all UN arcrafts were lost in the air combats it was also resault of AAA-guns fire. But the mostly of was the loses during the air battles.
So you could find the statistic of loses very interesting. So called "air superiority" of UN forces was mostly die to the superiority in total quantity of aircrafts but not in quality. During the air combats UN forces had a more rate of loss.
But this facts absolutly don't disparage the professionalism of UN pilots - they piloted not only new kind jet fighter but also and "WW2 raritet" like P-51 ( in compare the soviet pilot flyed mostly in newest Mig-15).
But who had the real problems - the crews of havy piston bombers like B-26 ( about 150 were lost) and epesially B-29 ( about 100) . This was a real shock for them when they found the so called "superfortness" was absolutly weak against speed Mig-15 whith its power 37-mm and two 20-mm guns. There were a cases when a SINGLE burst of gun-fire of Mig-15 destroed the B-29.
I have no any intention to reduse the role of excellent UN pilots but i have to conclude the soviet pilots not was less strong them americans, moreover there were a lot of cases when they were more lucky and professional.


I did see a TV documentary on this subject in recent months. In the main, it was comparing the merits of the two aircraft. However, it did discuss the Soviet contribution. One of the things remarked on was how the skills of the North Koreans had suddenly increased. That was when the American pilots first began to suspect they were flying against Soviets. The previous kill ratios for opposing sides were not refuted. The kill ratios (and the disappearance of downed American pilots) were a part of the reason that the comparisons were being made between the two aircrafts.

Well it seems i saw this film too.
Certainly both F-86 and Mig-15 was the best fighter of its time. And each fighter has its power sides. I read the book of soviet veteran of Korea where he wrote about cuptured Sabre. He was in delight from the wide and hight cocpit and espesially he liked the excellent electronic equpment of F-86. The Mig-15 till 1954 had no the reliable electro- horizon sustem and its radar was the worst.
But he wrote the power 3 Mig guns had a much more hited effect then 6 mashin-guns of Sabre. This is immediatelly had feels on its skin the crews of UN bombers ;)
In the common it hard to say what fighter was the better. The all was depends from the personal experience of pilot.


In the end, it's a matter of faith. One either accepts the information or not. When there is conflicting information - you pays your money and you takes your choice!
I don't think this is matter of faith - the history is not religion.
I have no reasons don't trust the contemporary Russian sources and we found from US sources of lost they very close to the true.
I wish to thank you for the refutation of soviet claims at the 650 hited F-86 , but at same time we found the total number of shoted UN aircraft is very reliable.
Just only mutial carefull stady of both side information could let us to learn the true - not the matter of faith IMHO.

Cheers.

32Bravo
02-19-2007, 03:30 AM
Why would you think 'faith' should only applied to religeon?...there are lies more lies and statistics. ;)

I am enjoying our little discussion. I have little time to continue today, but I will endeavour to find more information and, of course, if I find yours to be correct, I will be happy to concede. :D As things stand I need a lot more convincing.

Chevan
02-19-2007, 03:44 AM
Always, If you please ;)
I think we both could enjoy this thread :)

Cheers.

32Bravo
02-20-2007, 10:25 AM
Cut and paste from another site debating these issues:

Hundreds of B-29's? Hundreds of B-29's?
See, the problems I have with the new Soviet/Russian revelations of winning the Air War over Korea is the sheer numbers of claims. B-29's were forced to fly night bombing raids after the loss of a half dozen or so, which was all it took to prove that F-84's could NOT prevent the interception of B-29's by jets. There were so few B-29's even available to fly that the loss of this small number was considered disastrous.

Same with the F-86's. So many are claimed, by the Soviet pilots (and claimed for Chinese and North Korean pilots by said Soviet pilots), that a full scale, national cover-up would have had to have taken place, in America, in front of the press. Every worker in the factories, every ferry pilot, every pilot in Korea, would have to be in on the big secret, to wit: UN planes were downed by Communist MiG-15's by the thousands, and this was covered up. UN planes were falling in droves, every day, over the entire peninsula. Low level, medium level, and high level, day and night. And, compressed into the time frame of Soviet intervention (the MiG-15 didn't start the war, it was introduced later).

And the cover-up continues to this day. The USAF was crushed over the skies of Korea, secretly, but we're gonna keep up a good front, for morale purposes, and pretend we really won.

This scenario (the crushing of UN Air forces, causing cover-ups and speeded up productions of front line planes, and ALL the secret shenanigans that would entail) brings up several questions.

How, oh how, with air superiority, did those hordes of Chinese not drive the UN out of the peninsula? Call it propaganda all you want, but the Chinese seriously outnumbered the UN forces. According to Western propaganda, all that kept the North Koreans, then the Chinese, from slapping the insignificant UN ground forces aside was the application of crushing airpower, disallowing the Chinese any chance at consolidations on the battle field. Deep interdiction of supply routes also was a deciding factor. Are we to soon get a revised Chinese order of Battle, showing that the few troops they supplied achieved a stalemate only because of THEIR air superiority?

The US had major problems with their Air Power and its applications in Viet-Nam. These, with the huge losses to anti-aircraft, and the frustrations with "low" kill ratios, were well reported and documented. The arguments about who shot down how many are very minor. Why the big disparity in Korea?

These same Russians coming out with the "updated" results of casualties in WW2 and Korea, as dutifully reported by my good friend Alex, are being accused, by Russian citizens (mothers) as well as outsiders, of seriously underreporting the casualties of both Chechnyean conflicts, as well as the Afganistan war. In the USA a government agency investigating itself is ridiculed and reviled.

I have written on this subject so many times I really tire of it. The kicker, to me, is the article "What Did You Do In The War, Ivan". It showed that a Russian claim of 6 or 7 Australian Meteors on a certain date in the Korean war actually resulted in NO shootdowns. Look at a few of the websites showing the Russian victory over the skies of Korea, and you will see the date. The only reported kills were these Meteors. None were shot down, but all were fired upon. My good friend Zed tells me that Russians were allowed to make a claim if they believed the plane was damaged beyond repair (as opposed to the USA's requirements for an explosion, crash, flames, or corraboration). Add in a unit's Zampolit, the well known Soviet propensity to over claim, the pressures to produce, and we have the makings of what we see here.

It just doesn't add up. BUT, if you RB's feel better believing that the North Koreans and Chinese shot down some 400 US planes, with the Russians adding 800 some, with the UN bagging about 400 total, (thats right, 1200 to 400 total), then by all means go ahead. I really, really weary of defending against this type of historical revision based upon wishful thinking.

Chevan
02-21-2007, 05:43 AM
Well Bravo i have agree with you the Soviet unreal claming shoted down UN aircraft is not good.
There is some of statements which we could hear from the Russian members.
This material was took from the other popular forum:

The tupical list of soviet "archivements" in Korea is here
Lets consider what is the true and what is not


1. 64 iak was posted there after North Korean offensive was reversed and a threat of USA troops crossing 38th parallel occurred.
2. 64 iak was, as the name iak (fighter aviation corps) implies, pure fighters acting in air-defence role over North Korean territory ONLY. Their rules of engagement strictly PROHIBITED them to go south of 38th parallel and over the sea.

3. In sky they were always severely outnumbered, because there were only two (later three) airbases to scramble from. Therefore, it was normally impossible to have more than 30 a/c scrambled against a raid, which normally consisted of several B-29 bombers and 50 to 100 F-86 and F-84 flying cover.

4. Their main target was always bombers (especially B-29s) and fighter-bombers (F-80s).

This is true. At least considering the 5 articles of russian and Ukrain war historians which i were based of archives researchs.




5. They lost 335 a/c, 135 pilots and shot down about 1300 US a/c, including almost 200 B-29s. Every kill occurred over North Korean territory and was confirmed by coinciding gun camera footage, and wreck inspection or evidence from local administration that the plane was downed. American planes that were damaged or crashed behind front lines, on South Korean territory, were not counted as kills at all.

The particular true.
They really had losed 335 Mig-15 but claming the 200 shoted B-29 is the certainly nonsence ( like and claiming the 650 hited Sabres).


7. American kills were asserted by gun camera footage only, and unlike MiGs 23mm and 30mm guns, that was 12.7mm guns. Thus, a lot of kills were recorded for B-29 gunners.

8. Surprisingly, NO MiGs were downed by B-29 defensive fire at all.

Well i read the fragments of reports of Ivan Kojedub ( the famouse soviet WW2 aces who prepeared the soviet pilots in Korea) ther were a lot of cases when the Mig's were hited by the B-29 mushin-guns fire but there were no any records to confirm they were shoted down. Althiough i saw the photos of holes on Mig-15 from the muchin-gun bullets , but this was n't enought to damage fighter mortally, and practically in all cases pilots ( if he was not killed) could landed the fighters.
Indeed it was extremally hard to damage critically the speed jet fighter by the 12.7-mm mushin-gun of B-29.
If you look for instance to the Germans attacks at the B-17 formations 90% of shoted Germans fighters were hited by the escort fighters Tanderbolt or Mustang ( not the B-17 gunners).
But shoot to the Messershmitt is the one hand but the other hand is to shoot in Mig-15 dived on 900-1000 km/h to the B-29 formation from the rear half-sphera ( the tactic which soviet pilots used). In this way even automatic fire sistem of B-29 could be absolutly unuseful.
So considering this obvious facts i could admit this statements is true, exept perhaps few or single cases.



9. The primary result of Soviet involvement was limiting B-29s to night raids over clouds only. Fighter-bombers employment to the north of 38th parallel was also severely limited

Perhaps but the motives of the limitation of action B-29 could be anothers also.

Well concidering the statements above i wish to notice the all what we could consider as true is the total number of shoted B-29 in Korea is about 100 (different sources gives some little varians figures), B-26 about 150, and about 500-600(!!) of JET fighters.
It hard to believe but the soviet 64-iak lost about only 335 Mig-15 -the figure which i have no doubts to be the true.

Cheers.

32Bravo
02-21-2007, 07:13 AM
Chevan, as we have remarked in previous discussions, history is not an exact science and this topic is, in my opinion, a prime example of just how in-exact it can be. Many historians have their bias and dislikes (Herodotus and Xenophon come to mind – but don’t quote me:cool: ) which can affect their reporting. Add to that the reliability/unreliability of data, statistics and conflicting evidence, things can become rather confused. Once flaws are discovered, there is a natural tendency to treat all data from that particular source as flawed. What we ought to look for is corroboration and historical effect, as you have done in your comments above.

As we have also remarked, on this particular topic, unless we can gain access to original sources of data from both sides and corroborate the evidence we will probably never know the exact truth. However, reasoning seems to be putting us into the ‘ballpark’.

I do believe that I have become much better informed on this matter than I was before you opened the thread – well done!

32Bravo
02-21-2007, 09:09 AM
You mean the National Geographic TV show ?
I saw those, very good one.

I think it was on UK terestrial TV? However, these docu's are quite frequently repeated on the various statelite/cable channels. 'Discovery Wings' is probably a good place to start.

Nickdfresh
02-22-2007, 08:53 PM
Do somebody hear about particiation of Soviet fliers in the Korea in 1950-53?


There was a History Channel program on it a while ago. I believe the USAF and US Navy pilots could tell the difference between a MIG-15 flown by the Chinese or North Koreans and one flown by a Soviet pilot. They were rare, serving in small numbers, but it was no secret that the Soviet pilots were quite effective...

Nickdfresh
02-22-2007, 08:58 PM
Sure 335 is many who is doubt. Like and 650 Sabres.

I don't wish to overstimate here the soviet aces and disparage the americans pilot.
I just found the statistic of soviet victories ans loses are very interesting.
I wish to notice you here i will considered only Soviet pilot, not the N/Korean and China ( which also fought on the Mig-15 and had a much less medium skill of combat experience.
They had a more rate of losses from the US fighters.

Cheers.

I think the best guess is that they were roughly even...


The official kill ratio for the US Air Force was 11 (communist fighters shot down)-1 during the air-to-air combat engagements of the Korean War (it shrank to 2-1 during Vietnam). I do not doubt this since they were fighting ill trained Chinese and Korean pilots most of the time. But I've heard that any one's best guess is that the kill ratio between the Soviets and Americans was roughly equal, when you put aside all of the posturing, propaganda, and exaggerations...

Chevan
02-24-2007, 02:15 PM
I think the best guess is that they were roughly even...


The official kill ratio for the US Air Force was 11 (communist fighters shot down)-1 during the air-to-air combat engagements of the Korean War

Why is not 20-1 ? :D
As it was mentionet above the UN pilots claimed only 792 shoted down Mig-15 ( the basic SU/PDRK/China aircraft) but as it wrote Panzerkmacker the one hand was to claim but the other hand was to shot down the firghter ( Actually Russian sources confirmed the lost only 335(piloted by soviets)+ 231(piloted by China and Koreans) = 566 (!!!) Mig-15)
And as we had calculated the UN forces lost ONLY jet fighters about 600 .
I/e/ the rough kill ratio was 1-1 ONLY IN COMBATS OF JET FIGHTERS.
But UN forces lost about 500 Mustangs , 100 B-29 and 150 B-26 - the whole air armade.
At least 70-80% of those loses were the resault of Mig-15 attacs.
So i really don't know what are talking about 11-1?



(it shrank to 2-1 during Vietnam). I do not doubt this since they were fighting ill trained Chinese and Korean pilots most of the time.

This is right. As i read in the memours of Kogedub he wrote that the Chinas and Koreans pilots were too weak at first period of war till 1953. But he wrote after the "US intensive therapy" the professional skill of pilots was constantly rised and to the end of war there were a 1-2 kill rate.
Particulary he wrote the Chinas/Koreans lost 231 Mig and claimed 272 shoted of UN aircraft.But as we alredy know the claiming is not to be shoting. I think they shoted no more 40-50% of claiming i/e/ 100-120 aircrafts.



But I've heard that any one's best guess is that the kill ratio between the Soviets and Americans was roughly equal, when you put aside all of the posturing, propaganda, and exaggerations...

Well that's true if we look ONLY at the fighter/fighters combats. But don't forget the main aim of soviet fighers were the bombers . Mig-15 shooted down a lot of bombers ( see above) thus the total kill rate was at least 3( UN fighters,bombers and ets)-1(SU/CHINA/PDRK fighters).

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
02-25-2007, 10:26 PM
http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread169190/pg1#pid1708488

Read this post from ATS...

Chevan
02-26-2007, 01:03 AM
http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread169190/pg1#pid1708488

Read this post from ATS...

Mate could you be more accurate in the text of source next time ;) Do you mean the post of Jezza?


The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Well as we saw 792 victories was in reality 566 Migs ( 335 soviet and 231 PDRK/China).
But what's funny .......only 78 Sabres:)
It's amazing but Wiki gives ....."only 224 Sabres"
http://www.korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html gives "only 275 Sabres"
and Panzerknacer source give us ....."just 184 F-86 lost by every cause"
It's seems mate EVERYBODY has its own personal "source of true". Don't you seem it strange?


Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories.

It was 566 indeed ( all of Mig-15 all of modification shoted in Korea) + 10 Mig were lost in soviet airfields caused non-combat reasons. i/e/ about 600 .
And as you know Mig-15 fought NOT ONLY against Sabres but against Shoting Stars,Meteors and even Mustangs. Look to the loses rate of all of UN aircrafts and possibly you learn the true.:)

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
02-26-2007, 09:14 PM
I'll check the number discrepancies. But the F-80 Shooting Star saw only limited service in Korea as it was more of a WWII vintage jet and nearly saw service by the end of 1945. So it wouldn't have really been a fair fight, correct?

And I imagine some F-51 Mustangs were lost to MIGs, but in reality, the F-51 had been used solely for ground attack in Korea, as it was found to be an excellent "tank-buster" when armed with 66mm rockets. I would think the vast majority were lost to ground fire.

Nickdfresh
02-26-2007, 09:19 PM
BTW, the (American) History Channel had an episode of "Dogfights" on a USAF Sabre versus a Russian "Honcho" piloted MIG. "Honcho" is Japanese for "boss" or "big shot," which is how the US pilots referred to the (suspected) Soviet pilots in Korea.

Chevan
02-27-2007, 12:13 AM
I'll check the number discrepancies.

OK if you please

But the F-80 Shooting Star saw only limited service in Korea as it was more of a WWII vintage jet and nearly saw service by the end of 1945. So it wouldn't have really been a fair fight, correct?

Sorry mate but number of lost F-80 - about 300 does not look like "limited service".
I have to agree about Meteors ( 42 lost) this look like true exactly becouse reason that you wrote - it was WW2 raritet.


And I imagine some F-51 Mustangs were lost to MIGs, but in reality, the F-51 had been used solely for ground attack in Korea, as it was found to be an excellent "tank-buster" when armed with 66mm rockets. I would think the vast majority were lost to ground fire.
Even if you right i.e. Koreans developed the "revolution method of hight skill shoting down" the US tank-busters they could not capable to hit 500 aircrafts for 3 years.
Moreover as i read in memours of Ivan Kogedub he recal the Mig-15 attack to the Mustang formations and destruction some of them.
Don't forget that the first and main the task of Mig was not the air fight with UN fighters - but the ground troops supportion and objects defence missions. They primiraly aim was the bombers B-29/26 and fighers-bombers F-80 and in same cases "anty-tank killers" P-51.
This coused the hight rate of loses of the piston aircrafts ( this is good supported by the datasof UN loses).
So even if the N/Koreans AAA gunners was a "damn lucky" shoting down the US Mustang by the bundles ( whats is the very controversial considering the experience of WW2) i could support that at least half of Mustang were damaged by Mig pilots (soviet and koreans).

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
03-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Here's an article I found:

http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/air_f_fs.shtml

Chevan
03-02-2007, 12:45 AM
Well Nick thank you for the work...
let's read this more closely.

The first USAF plane destroyed in the war was a disabled C-54 transport caught by enemy fighters at Seoul's Kimpo Airfield. Some 1,465 additional USAF planes would be lost to various causes before the conflict ended. Only 10 percent of these losses would be in air-to-air combat.
Stop here. The figure of total lost 1465 a well agreeable with other sourses.
But "only 10 percent" i/e/ 145 is a full shit.:)
Lets admit the tipical rate of non-combat loses ( on different reasons) the 10-15% ( this is highest rate for the airforce in the war) . For instance the Soviet non-combat loses were 10 Mig-15 from 335 lost i.e. about 3%(!!!)
So if we admit that the UN pilot were "worst level" and lost 10% of non-combat reasons.OK
Thus what we will have:
145 were lost in air-air combats + 145 were lost on different non-combats reasons = 290 aircraft.
So mate WHO SHOTED DOWN OTHER 1175 UN aircrafts.
MAy be it was the "super-accurate" N/Koreans AAA-gunners, or may be it was the China's Rembo's with bows ;)
MAte if it coulb be the true - tell me please why it was nessesary to send the expensive Migs in the Korea, it will much better to send there a several soviet corps of AAA-gun artillery. They will shot down all the US aircrafts and and work well done;)

On November 8, 1950, 1st Lt. Russell Brown, flying an F-80, shot down a MiG-15 in the first all-jet dogfight in history
Really mate?
Now lets read the russian sources


http://chiv04.narod.ru/avia003.html
On 8 November of losses among the Soviet parts it is not noted. During that day combat conducted 28, 72 and 139- guard airs regiment. 139- regiments aircraft of the type F -80 in air it did not meet. 28 regiments, covering city and airfield of Andun, at height 4000 it is meter conducted futile air battle with six F -51. in this case, at height 4800 it was meter it patrolled group F -80, but not there was battle with it.

Indeed the first jet victory belongs to the pilot of F9F William Т. Amen who shoted down the Mig-15 of captain M.F. Grachev . He didn't come back to the airfild in 9 nov of 1950


Soon the Sabres and MiGs were mixing it up over northwest Korea, an area that became known as "MiG Alley." On December 17, 1950, Lt. Col. Bruce Hinton WAS THE FIRST Sabre pilot to score the first of an estimated 818 MiG-15 kills
As we know the total lost of Migs were 566 in Korea.


For a time the B-29s continued bombing targets in northwest Korea by day, but when MiG-15s shot down five Superfortresses in a week in October 1951, the big bombers began attacking only at night
It was a famouse "black week " for the B-29 when were lost 5 in N.Korea territory and 8 fall down to the sea.


These seven planes were the first of more than 975 enemy aircraft to be downed by FEAF planes in aerial combat.

Oh it is already 975 ...818 from it was the Mig-15.

Nick thanks a lot , but i have to conclude this "source" which you linked look like the US propoganda site for inner aims. Thi is not the realible couse it had a great discrepancies with other (BTW US) .

Cheers.

Chevan
03-02-2007, 01:42 AM
Here is some of interesting photos
http://sovserv.ru/KA6AH/usatruth/usatruth.by.ru/c2.files/image2.gifhttp://sovserv.ru/KA6AH/usatruth/usatruth.by.ru/c2.files/image3.gif
The E.Pepeliaev gun-camera image. In the sight the F-86.
http://sovserv.ru/KA6AH/usatruth/usatruth.by.ru/c2.files/image4.gif
The damagings on the Pepeliaev's Mig from the Sabre mashin-gun aftre the combat in 6 october 1951
http://sovserv.ru/KA6AH/usatruth/usatruth.by.ru/c2.files/image5.gif
The Sabre hited by the Pepeliaev 6 oct 1951. Later this Sabre was removed to the Soviet arfield and being cuted to 3 parts was sended to the Moscow for study.

Chevan
03-02-2007, 03:41 AM
One more interesting link is here
http://www.wio.ru/korea/korea-a.htm
The comparision of "official" US and Soviet datas of loses in Korea.
And list of the best aces in Korea is also very interesting.
As we could see the official US sources "confirmed" lost of lost in air-air combats:
103 Sabres + 17 B-29 + 18 F-84 + 15 F-80 + 12 Mustangs + 5 Meteors = 170 aircraft(!!!)
This is quite amazing but US confirmed the overall loses in Korea is more that 1000++ aircrafts (Just there were rescued over alive 1000++ pilots).
And claming the 818 hited Migs is a very big overstatement.

Cojimar 1945
05-09-2007, 09:57 PM
The Soviets seemed to have lagged behind the west technologically in aviation.

Nickdfresh
05-12-2007, 10:48 AM
One more interesting link is here
http://www.wio.ru/korea/korea-a.htm
The comparision of "official" US and Soviet datas of loses in Korea.
And list of the best aces in Korea is also very interesting.
As we could see the official US sources "confirmed" lost of lost in air-air combats:
103 Sabres + 17 B-29 + 18 F-84 + 15 F-80 + 12 Mustangs + 5 Meteors = 170 aircraft(!!!)
This is quite amazing but US confirmed the overall loses in Korea is more that 1000++ aircrafts (Just there were rescued over alive 1000++ pilots).
And claming the 818 hited Migs is a very big overstatement.

No, it's not. The 1000+ pilots may have been bomber air crews, helicopter pilots, and members of allied UN air forces --not just US personnel. Also, "losses" are not just from "air-to-air" dogfights, but from anti-aircraft artillery (which was really the greatest threat to UN pilots), and crashes due to accidents and mechanical failures. There were never more than 180 Sabres in the Korean theater at any one time, whilst there was something like just-under 900 MIG-15s operated by the Chinese, N. Koreans, and a few Soviet pilots, at all times, by 1952 I believe. So obviously, the potential for such a high kill ratio is there. Does that mean that the F-86 was better than the MIG-15? Hardly, both had their advantages and deficiencies, and the MIG-15 would have been superior with a few improvements, hands down.

The problem was that the MIG were flown by comparatively few professional, experienced Soviet "Honcho" (top dog) pilots, while numerous US pilots were WWII aces (also known as Honchos) and had significant experience fighting the Luftwaffe and Japanese air arms.

And the "kill ratio" of 11-1 was only counted as air-to-air combat victories between the F-86 and the MIG-15. It wasn't really fair, nor even relevant, for the USAF to count how many Mustangs were shot down by MIG-15s, but I can assure you, it had virtually no affect. The telling reason why is this: the US/UN had virtual air superiority when conducting tactical support operations, and were forbidden to even fly past the North Korean border to strike China for most of the War. The communist air forces were simply a non-factor for the most part, with the exception of inflicting some losses on the second-rate B-29 WWII leftovers, which the Soviets knew very well since they were flying it as the Tu-4! The USAF refused to risk and diffuse its air assets such as the B-36 in the Asian War.

Some of this info was gleaned from memory after reading "The Korean War," by Max Hastings. Great read!

Nickdfresh
05-12-2007, 11:08 AM
Well Nick thank you for the work...
let's read this more closely.
Stop here. The figure of total lost 1465 a well agreeable with other sourses.
But "only 10 percent" i/e/ 145 is a full shit.:)
Lets admit the tipical rate of non-combat loses ( on different reasons) the 10-15% ( this is highest rate for the airforce in the war) . For instance the Soviet non-combat loses were 10 Mig-15 from 335 lost i.e. about 3%(!!!)
So if we admit that the UN pilot were "worst level" and lost 10% of non-combat reasons.OK
Thus what we will have:
145 were lost in air-air combats + 145 were lost on different non-combats reasons = 290 aircraft.
So mate WHO SHOTED DOWN OTHER 1175 UN aircrafts.
MAy be it was the "super-accurate" N/Koreans AAA-gunners, or may be it was the China's Rembo's with bows ;)
MAte if it coulb be the true - tell me please why it was nessesary to send the expensive Migs in the Korea, it will much better to send there a several soviet corps of AAA-gun artillery. They will shot down all the US aircrafts and and work well done;)

If you actually read about the conflict, something other than agenda websites cherrypicking the worst of the US/UN actions in Korea, you'll learn that the vast majority of the air war was close tactical air support to ground forces, desperately needed in 1950 especially.

The Communist air forces were simply a nonfactor. The UN had complete air superiority and conducted air strikes at will, and destroyed the N. Korean air force within' a few days. So, actually, anything other than losses of piston engined aircraft due to AAA and ground fire would be ridiculous...


Really mate?
Now lets read the russian sources

Indeed the first jet victory belongs to the pilot of F9F William Т. Amen who shoted down the Mig-15 of captain M.F. Grachev . He didn't come back to the airfild in 9 nov of 1950

Actually, the "Russian sources" may be the "bullshit" ones, since there were very few Russians in the War, as Moscow was largely pissed off over the uncoordinated (with them) Chinese intervention to the extent they refused aid to China, only selling them weapons for cash. The Soviet pilots were there to gauge and probe US tactics and to get experience against the US air forces. Nothing more.

I think they're an interesting historical note, but one that has been exaggerated.


As we know the total lost of Migs were 566 in Korea.

I'll check.


It was a famouse "black week " for the B-29 when were lost 5 in N.Korea territory and 8 fall down to the sea.

The "black week" was a pin-***** inflicted on obsolete aircraft used as cannon fodder in Korea. And such losses would have been regarded as light in WWII...


Oh it is already 975 ...818 from it was the Mig-15.

Nick thanks a lot , but i have to conclude this "source" which you linked look like the US propoganda site for inner aims. Thi is not the realible couse it had a great discrepancies with other (BTW US) .

Cheers.

Yeah, um, the source you provided has a blinking "lol" on it. And they interestingly use the most favorable "statistics" from both US and USSR "sources."

We'll have to call pot-tea kettle on that one!

You can throw any statistics out there that you want. But the facts support the USAF official history, because: as stated twice now, the Communist air forces were virtually of no hindrance to UN air power. Something that has been verified. If the US lost so many Sabres, then why were the vaunted (few) Soviet and supposedly "expert" Chinese pilots (by your assertions) not able to conduct any significant ground attack operations nor provide any sort of adequate air cover to the PLA and DPRK Armies?

In fact, if the US had not had absolute control of the air from the outset, the UN Armies would have probably been driven into the sea because of the initially poor performance of the US Army. It wasn't until the Spring of 1951 that the US Army, under the fantastic leadership of Gen. Matthew Ridgeway, was able to stabilize and inflict heavy casualties on the Chinese...

Chevan
05-12-2007, 06:08 PM
Nick what's happend ?
You pomised to check the discrepancies of the US "officials figures". Istead of you simply are going around.
How could we move forward in our study/checking the history;)?

No, it's not. The 1000+ pilots may have been bomber air crews, helicopter pilots, and members of allied UN air forces --not just US personnel.
That's true Nick but don't forget not all of the pilots who were shoted down were saved.
Many of then had perished or were captured. I think the total loses of UN/US pilots was over 2000.


Also, "losses" are not just from "air-to-air" dogfights, but from anti-aircraft artillery (which was really the greatest threat to UN pilots), and crashes due to accidents and mechanical failures.

this is very controversial point.
The ww2 experience just proved the AAA-artillery was not an such effective as you wrote about N/Korea.
BTW Have you a separate statistic of the kills of the N/Koreans AA-gunners?


There were never more than 180 Sabres in the Korean theater at any one time, whilst there was something like just-under 900 MIG-15s operated by the Chinese, N. Koreans, and a few Soviet pilots, at all times, by 1952 I believe.

Perhaps there were 180 Sabres at the any one time but the total quanty of F-86 was

According to a recent U.S. publication, the number of USAF F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war totalled only 674 and the total F-86 losses due to all causes were about 230
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

But as we know another sources called the 224/275 lost Sabres.
And the "few soviet" pilots (1100 indeed pilots that went through the Korean warfor the 3 years according the http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/koreaussr.html)
operated about 190 (!!!) of Mig-15 at any one time according to the statistic of the soviet 64 UAK.


So obviously, the potential for such a high kill ratio is there. Does that mean that the F-86 was better than the MIG-15? Hardly, both had their advantages and deficiencies, and the MIG-15 would have been superior with a few improvements, hands down.

That's true the both aircraft were the best in its time.
The Mig-15 was the perfect "bomber-killer" due to its guns firepower.
The Sabre was the perfect hunter due its better electrical equipment.


The problem was that the MIG were flown by comparatively few professional, experienced Soviet "Honcho" (top dog) pilots, while numerous US pilots were WWII aces (also known as Honchos) and had significant experience fighting the Luftwaffe and Japanese air arms.

Nevertheless the "few soviet professionals" who shoted down at least 3 times more UN aircrafts then they losed of the own;)
Not bad for the "few" ( more exactly 52 soviet pilot had bacome the aces - they shot down more then 5 enemy aircraft)


And the "kill ratio" of 11-1 was only counted as air-to-air combat victories between the F-86 and the MIG-15. It wasn't really fair, nor even relevant, for the USAF to count how many Mustangs were shot down by MIG-15s, but I can assure you, it had virtually no affect. The telling reason why is this: the US/UN had virtual air superiority when conducting tactical support operations, and were forbidden to even fly past the North Korean border to strike China for most of the War.

The 1:11 kill ratio is Sabres Vs Mig is the just the propogandic "fairy tells" that was developed to prove the USA has "absolute won" the air combats . nothing more.


The communist air forces were simply a non-factor for the most part, with the exception of inflicting some losses on the second-rate B-29 WWII leftovers, which the Soviets knew very well since they were flying it as the Tu-4! The USAF refused to risk and diffuse its air assets such as the B-36 in the Asian War.

Even if we admit your point about "super N.Korean AA-gunners" - but this is just suggestion) the at least half of the UN aircrafts were shoted by the AA-gunners the other half is about - 1000 aircrafts by the 'communists" aviation.
Not bed i think for the non-factor. How do you think?

BTW you still do not provide any statistic figures about persantage of hited


Some of this info was gleaned from memory after reading "The Korean War," by Max Hastings. Great read!

Good ,just do not frget to visit our forum to clear the mind comparing the different points;)

Chevan
05-12-2007, 06:52 PM
If you actually read about the conflict, something other than agenda websites cherrypicking the worst of the US/UN actions in Korea, you'll learn that the vast majority of the air war was close tactical air support to ground forces, desperately needed in 1950 especially.

Nick if you actually read about tactic of application the USAAF in Korea ( or at least more attentively has read this thread) you shoud learn the main aim of the Migs were the bombers B-29/26 (i.e againt the strategic aviation) and particulary fighters-bombers F-80.
As you maybe know the strategic aviation aim was not the supporting the ground forces but the attack of the Korean airfields , cities, bridges and simply forifed areas. This could be in the interaction with the ground forces but MORE OFTEN ( as it was in the WW2) the Strategic aviation had a own separate goal - to destroy the rear of the enemy.


The Communist air forces were simply a nonfactor. The UN had complete air superiority and conducted air strikes at will, and destroyed the N. Korean air force within' a few days. So, actually, anything other than losses of piston engined aircraft due to AAA and ground fire would be ridiculous...

The UN forces nothong destroed for the few days endeed.
The Soviet and Korean Mig fly from the Mongolian and China's airfields during the whole rest of the war.


Actually, the "Russian sources" may be the "bullshit" ones, since there were very few Russians in the War, as Moscow was largely pissed off over the uncoordinated (with them) Chinese intervention to the extent they refused aid to China, only selling them weapons for cash. The Soviet pilots were there to gauge and probe US tactics and to get experience against the US air forces. Nothing more.
Nope, something more;)
The Soviets not just supplied the China/Koreans by the wearpons but also the teach them to use it.
In fact all the China/Korean pilots were grow under the soviet 'teachers'.
And may be you don't know but anbout 30 000 of soviet peoples were participating in the different roles ( war experts,advisers and ets) . Do not look like the "very few Russians" , right.

The "black week" was a pin-***** inflicted on obsolete aircraft used as cannon fodder in Korea. And such losses would have been regarded as light in WWII...

Well Nick the whole Korean war is just the "childish play" in the comparition with WW2 right?
BTW is the F-80/84 the obsolete aircraft in the 1950?


Yeah, um, the source you provided has a blinking "lol" on it. And they interestingly use the most favorable "statistics" from both US and USSR "sources."
And do you have another "statistic". Would you so kind please;)


We'll have to call pot-tea kettle on that one!

You can throw any statistics out there that you want. But the facts support the USAF official history, because: as stated twice now, the Communist air forces were virtually of no hindrance to UN air power. Something that has been verified. If the US lost so many Sabres, then why were the vaunted (few) Soviet and supposedly "expert" Chinese pilots (by your assertions) not able to conduct any significant ground attack operations nor provide any sort of adequate air cover to the PLA and DPRK Armies?

The reason is obvious Nick - how could the about 300 "communist" Migs + about 200 of the piston WW2 aircraft to stop the air offencive of the almost 2.5-3 thousands of the UN aircrafts?
The whole the Soviet war industry ( that factically armed the both NKorean and Chinas)was not capable to get the air superiority with the union allies forces.
But the Migs was a great hindrance for the UN.
At least i know for the sure after the "black thusday" the allies command refused the day raids even.


In fact, if the US had not had absolute control of the air from the outset, the UN Armies would have probably been driven into the sea because of the initially poor performance of the US Army. It wasn't until the Spring of 1951 that the US Army, under the fantastic leadership of Gen. Matthew Ridgeway, was able to stabilize and inflict heavy casualties on the Chinese...

Oh "fantastic leadership" sound so great espesially when you have the 10 times wearpon superiority against the enemy.
Look like the real "partiotism" to infict the Chinas piasants armed only with small namber of rifles and amunition the heavy casualites by the US strongest war mashine in the world?

Panzerknacker
05-12-2007, 06:57 PM
The USAF received from his pilots 792 claims of migs "killed" in air combat, 20 years after the conflict the USAF high command admited that the actual losses of Mig-15s would the half of the figure and probably less, so the 566 mig lost still seems high to me.


The Soviets seemed to have lagged behind the west technologically in aviation

In wich way ? was the MIG-15 inferior ?

Nickdfresh
05-13-2007, 11:26 AM
Nick what's happend ?
You pomised to check the discrepancies of the US "officials figures". Istead of you simply are going around.
How could we move forward in our study/checking the history;)?

I don't have time to run around the interweb all day. Anyhoo, we seem to have plenty of problematic figures already...


That's true Nick but don't forget not all of the pilots who were shoted down were saved.
Many of then had perished or were captured. I think the total loses of UN/US pilots was over 2000.

Air crews you mean, not necessarily "pilots."


this is very controversial point.
The ww2 experience just proved the AAA-artillery was not an such effective as you wrote about N/Korea.
BTW Have you a separate statistic of the kills of the N/Koreans AA-gunners?

I don't agree! Damnit, it's a beautiful Sunday here, and you're going to make me pull out my books! :mad:


Perhaps there were 180 Sabres at the any one time but the total quanty of F-86 was

According to a recent U.S. publication, the number of USAF F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war totalled only 674 and the total F-86 losses due to all causes were about 230
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

But as we know another sources called the 224/275 lost Sabres.

Firstly, it's not a particularly strong Wiki article, even by their standards. And the author admits that Chinese and Soviet claims are "exaggerated." And I'm not sure that elite Sabre pilots "struggled" anymore against the "elite Soviet pilots" than vice versa...

But only 78-Sabres were lost to air-to-air engagements as far as I've found...


And the "few soviet" pilots (1100 indeed pilots that went through the Korean warfor the 3 years according the http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/koreaussr.html)
operated about 190 (!!!) of Mig-15 at any one time according to the statistic of the soviet 64 UAK.

That's true the both aircraft were the best in its time.
The Mig-15 was the perfect "bomber-killer" due to its guns firepower.
The Sabre was the perfect hunter due its better electrical equipment.

On one point we agree. They were both quite remarkable and well matched aircraft. I've a soft spot for both actually.


Nevertheless the "few soviet professionals" who shoted down at least 3 times more UN aircrafts then they losed of the own;)
Not bad for the "few" ( more exactly 52 soviet pilot had bacome the aces - they shot down more then 5 enemy aircraft)

There may have been 1100 pilots (or air crews), but they weren't necessarily flying Migs.

And all you are saying is that you believe the Russian sources over the official USAF sources. Fine. But to say the Soviet pilots shot down three times as many aircraft as they lost may or may not be an exaggeration or a stat taken out of context, and not that laudable if they were shooting down obsolete piston engined fighter aircraft relegated to ground attack roles. Even so, the Soviets lost presumably few aircraft, because the UN lost relatively few aircraft and considered the threat from enemy aircraft to be low and of almost no hindrance to tactical air support.


The 1:11 kill ratio is Sabres Vs Mig is the just the propogandic "fairy tells" that was developed to prove the USA has "absolute won" the air combats . nothing more.

Or that there were few Russian flyers at anyone time, and the N. Korean and Chinese pilots were no match for experienced and well trained USAF and UN pilots.

I've heard the ex-Red Air Force pilot claim (this was a very long time ago, so I could be wrong) that Soviet pilots achieved a slightly better than half kill ratio against US and allied jet fighters, maybe 52%-48%, but that was a while ago so I could be wrong...

But US pilots flying Sabres were the elites with much WWII combat experience, and there were never enough Sabres since they were deployed in a North American interceptor role as well...

I don't know, you decide.

From "The Korean War" (http://www.amazon.com/Korean-War-Max-Hastings/dp/067166834X) by Max Hastings (pages 262-263, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1988, ISDN: 0671-66834-X)

The Australian Meteor squadron, also based there, had a fine reputation, but the Australian pilots were chronically jealous of the Sabre. The Meteor was considered to be an aircraft that could take punishment, but it also possessed a highly vulnerable hydraulic system that could be crippled by a single small-arms round through a leading edge. Heavy on the ailerons, it was hard work to fly from its cramped cockpit. The pressure on the pilots was intense: one British officer flew 114 Meteor sorties in six months, on one occasion five in a day.

Four Sabres sat permanently at readiness on the runway, the Alert Patrol, in case of some sudden report of an enemy takeoff by the radar controllers. The pilots recognized the key role of the controllers in making their scores possible—Low took them a few cases of beer whenever he made a kill. Each flier had pet preferences about his aircraft and his weapons. Some loaded extra tracer in the guns. Many carried solid tracer at the end of their belts to give warning that their 300 rounds were close to exhaustion. Most pilots wore silk scarves, and many affected the old soft leather World War II helmets until they were ordered to change to modern molded designs.

The enthusiasm of the enemy varied greatly from month to month. Sometimes weeks would go by without a UN squadron seeing combat. Then, without warning, the MIGs would embark on a flurry of activity. In a characteristic month—December 1952— the statistics tell the story: 3,997 MIGs were reported seen in the air by UN pilots; attempts were made to engage 1,849; twenty-seven were confirmed destroyed. Enormous effort was expended to achieve modest results in direct damage to the enemy. But much more important, air supremacy over Korea was constantly maintained. Men like Jim Low, with his flamboyant taste for enormous Havana cigars, his growing reputation as a "honcho"—a top pilot—revelled in the struggle. "I enjoyed all of it," he said later, "the flying, shooting down aircraft. I was too young to think about the politics. It was just a job we were over there to do."9 Each pilot flew around 100 missions, perhaps six months' combat duty, before being rotated back to the United States. There was, perhaps, less tension among the squadrons in Korea than in World War II because the dominance of the American pilots was so great, their casualties less alarming. Some celebrated pilots were lost: Bud Mahurin, a World War II group commander, was shot down by ground fire; George Davis, one of the most celebrated aces, was brought down by a MIG when his score stood at fourteen victories. But the odds on survival were good. Even those who were lost were scarcely missed when men were coming and going constantly on routine rotations. And as Flight Lieutenant John Nicholls of the RAF, who flew the Sabre with the Americans, put it, "In England after a flying accident, there was a funeral. But in Korea, somebody just wasn't there anymore." Jim Low went home after ninety-five missions with five MIGs to his credit, and not a scratch on him. He went on to fly fighters over Vietnam and survive five years in a Communist prison camp. The Sabre remained unchallenged as the outstanding aircraft of the Korean War: of 900 enemy aircraft claimed destroyed during the war by U.S.A.F. pilots, 792 were MIG-15s destroyed by Sabres, for the loss of just seventy-eight of their own aircraft. It was, inevitably, a Sabre pilot who became the war's top-scoring ace, Captain Joseph McConnell, with sixteen confirmed "victories."

If at least a proportion of fighter pilots found their occupation glamorous, it is unlikely that any of the heavy bomber crews would have said the same about theirs, flying a dreary daily shuttle to industrial and military targets in North Korea. Joe Hilliard was a twenty-seven-year-old Texas farmboy who just missed World War II and spent his first flying years as a navigator in what was then the U.S.A.F.'s only designated nuclear bomber group. He was newly returned from a tour of duty in England when Korea came, and he was rushed to Okinawa with the 307th Bomb Wing. They met none of the traditional comforts of combat aircrew: the only permanent accommodation on the base was occupied by another wing. They found themselves living in tents, which were razed to the ground at regular intervals by hurricanes. Their B-50 aircraft were taken from them and they were given instead old B-29s, just out of mothballs, which posed chronic problems with mechanical defects: "We were really mad about that. We got the feeling that the U.S.A.F. just didn't want to waste its first-line equipment on Korea."10 To their disgust, they found that even the flight rations with which they were provided were of World War II manufacture.


cont'd

Nickdfresh
05-13-2007, 11:28 AM
Even if we admit your point about "super N.Korean AA-gunners" - but this is just suggestion) the at least half of the UN aircrafts were shoted by the AA-gunners the other half is about - 1000 aircrafts by the 'communists" aviation.
Not bed i think for the non-factor. How do you think?

BTW you still do not provide any statistic figures about persantage of hited


Good ,just do not frget to visit our forum to clear the mind comparing the different points;)

Well, I'm not sure the North Korean or Chinese forces kept accurate statistics on what they hit...

But here is an idea of what the typical operations and losses were like.


Again, Max Hastings writes
(Battle in the Air pg's 266-267):

The vast majority of the 1,040,708 aerial sorties flown by UN aircraft in the course of the Korean War were close support, or fighter cover. Their importance was undisputed. But America's leading airmen persistently urged a more ambitious role for their forces in Korea and chafed at the frustrations of ground support. General Jacob Smart, Far East Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations) for most of 1952, complained bitterly about "the opinion so often expressed or implied, that the Eighth Army is responsible for winning the Korean War, and that the role of the other services is to support it in its effort."13 Here, yet again, was the airmen's search for a decisive independent role. Yet between June 1951 and the summer of 1952, the U.S. Air Force attempted overwhelmingly its most ambitious independent contribution to the struggle, and suffered the most galling failure.
"Operation Strangle" was a systematic attempt to cut off the Communist The-
...ground forces in the front line from their supplies by the sustained exercise of air power. It began with a campaign of bombing the road network in North Korea, and in August 1951 was extended to the railways. Three quarters of all land-based bomber effort and the entire carrier capability were dedicated to this task. Day after day and night after night, the enemy's communications were pounded from the air. In a fashion disturbingly reminiscent of World War II, and prescient of Vietnam, air force intelligence officers produced extraordinary graphs and statistics to demonstrate the crushing impact of the campaign on Communist movement. Yet, by the summer of 1952, none of this could mask the reality on the ground: the enemy's supplies were still getting through—between 1,000 and 2,000 tons a day continued to cross the Yalu at the height of "Strangle," it was later discovered. Prodigious feats of repair by civilian labor gangs working around the clock kept just enough of the road and rail network open to move food and ammunition. Constantly improving Communist antiaircraft defenses emphasized the eternal conundrum: to bomb low meant accepting unacceptable casualties; to bomb high meant a fatal loss of accuracy. "Strangle" cost the UN air forces 343 aircraft. destroyed and 290 damaged, mostly fighter-bombers. It proved to objective observers such as Ridgway that there was "simply no such thing as choking off supply lines in a country as wild as North Korea."..."Strangle" was finally abandoned in the summer of 1952 in the face of severe aircraft losses for dubious strategic return. The airmen claimed that the campaign had at least prevented the Communists from building up supplies to mount a major offensive, but most thoughtful observers doubted that this had been the enemy's intention. The air forces turned instead to a succession of selective attacks upon power plants and dams in North Korea, about whose destruction the Communists were expected to be especially sensitive. Operation "Pressure Pump" was designed to impress upon the Communist delegation at Panmunjom the urgency of signing an armistice. Bomber attack, wrote Bradley as Chief of the JCS in November 1952, "constitutes the most potent means at present available to UNC, of maintaining the degree of military pressure which might impel the Communists to agree, finally, to acceptable armistice terms." 5 Yet American attacks upon the huge Suiho hydroelectric plant on the Yalu in June 1952 aroused intense controversy around the world, and especially in Britain, where strategic bombing in Korea was a sensitive issue.


And BTW, Englishman Max Hastings is no sycophant of American military power. A good deal of his book is highly critical of the performance of the US ground forces from 1950 to mid-1951...

Nickdfresh
05-13-2007, 11:46 AM
Nick if you actually read about tactic of application the USAAF in Korea ( or at least more attentively has read this thread) you shoud learn the main aim of the Migs were the bombers B-29/26 (i.e againt the strategic aviation) and particulary fighters-bombers F-80.

But they flew at night mostly, so the MIGs were only so effective against them. And as I said, the Korean War was used as a training opportunity by both sides of the Cold War.

And the F-80 was all but removed from the theater as it too was an obsolete, virtually WWII vintage jet.


As you maybe know the strategic aviation aim was not the supporting the ground forces but the attack of the Korean airfields , cities, bridges and simply forifed areas. This could be in the interaction with the ground forces but MORE OFTEN ( as it was in the WW2) the Strategic aviation had a own separate goal - to destroy the rear of the enemy.

And as you'll see in my scan of Hastings' book, there were few targets to go after by 1951.



The UN forces nothong destroed for the few days endeed.
The Soviet and Korean Mig fly from the Mongolian and China's airfields during the whole rest of the war.
Nope, something more;)
The Soviets not just supplied the China/Koreans by the wearpons but also the teach them to use it.

I would hope so!


In fact all the China/Korean pilots were grow under the soviet 'teachers'.
And may be you don't know but anbout 30 000 of soviet peoples were participating in the different roles ( war experts,advisers and ets) . Do not look like the "very few Russians" , right.

I don't dispute that Soviets trained Chinese/DPRK pilots. But they were still largely ineffective...

And so you admit that the Soviets were aiding the aggressor in the conflict?:)


Well Nick the whole Korean war is just the "childish play" in the comparition with WW2 right?

Not to the individuals who fought and died in it. But on the terms of scale, it would have been a sideshow in WWII...


BTW is the F-80/84 the obsolete aircraft in the 1950?
And do you have another "statistic". Would you so kind please;)

The F-80 was ready for field trials at the end of WWII and I think it flew some sorties. It was in fact designed with the ME-262 in mind, and would have been operational for "Operation Downfall" (the invasion of Japan) had it occurred, so yes, it was obsolete by 1950-53, and was a marginal player...

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/p80_shooting_star.htm


The reason is obvious Nick - how could the about 300 "communist" Migs + about 200 of the piston WW2 aircraft to stop the air offencive of the almost 2.5-3 thousands of the UN aircrafts?
The whole the Soviet war industry ( that factically armed the both NKorean and Chinas)was not capable to get the air superiority with the union allies forces.
But the Migs was a great hindrance for the UN.
At least i know for the sure after the "black thusday" the allies command refused the day raids even.

Yes. As I've said all along, there were not enough MIGs and competent pilots to really turn the tide.

And you are correct, I believe the USAF switched to nighttime raids...


Oh "fantastic leadership" sound so great espesially when you have the 10 times wearpon superiority against the enemy.
Look like the real "partiotism" to infict the Chinas piasants armed only with small namber of rifles and amunition the heavy casualites by the US strongest war mashine in the world?

Yes, well those Chinese PLA "volunteer" "peasants" also had decades of combat experience and outnumbered UN forces significantly. The US forces suffered from poor training and morale even while pushing the North Koreans back after Inchon.

And you are wrong, the US Army was pitiful compared to it's strength in 1945. I believe it was reduced from nine-million men to a "trip-wire" force of about 500,000 volunteer soldiers with poor readiness and a reliance on mothballed WWII era weapons. And its troops were poorly trained and led in many circumstances.

As one American Korean War veteran put it, "we went into Korea with a bad Army, and come out with a good one."

But that's another thread.