# MIG vs SABRE



## Hobilar (Nov 5, 2007)

Oddly enough the Chinese and North Koreans had by far the most advanced Jet fighter to see action in the Korean War. The appearance of the Russian built MIG 15 came as a complete surprise to the Americans who had been using elderly World War II aircraft for their air operations. Hurriedly a wing of the new P86A Sabre Jet fighter had to be rushed out to the Korean theatre to counter the threat that the MIG represented. The MIG however proved to have a considerably faster rate of climb than the Sabre, and could operate at a greater altitude than its American counterpart. 

In addition the MIG was armed with cannon rather than the machine guns in the Sabre. 1,500 machine gun bullets sometimes being fired to bring down a MIG, whilst only a few cannon shells could inflict considerable damage on the high flying B29 Superfortresses that the Americans were using for their bombing raids. 

Regrettably the MIG also proved to be quite difficult to fly. Except for some Russian, Czech and Polish volunteer pilots using tactics learnt from the Luftwaffe during WWII the inexperienced Chinese and Korean pilots proved no match for veteran US aces who had learnt the art of dog-fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific only a few years before. The MIG also had a tendency to go into a spin from which their pilots were rarely able to pull out from, and therefore were forced to eject. 

Despite a loss rate of 10 to 1, by the time of the cease-fire the Communists had nearly 1,000 MIG-15s operational compared with only just over 250 US Sabres some of which were equipped as Fighter-Bombers.


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 5, 2007)

It is. The Mig-15 was equipped with a license built Rolls Royce Nene and its Russian variants. That is one of the most interesting feature of the superb machine of the age. What would happen if the Ki-61 had a RR Merlin?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

The 10 to 1 kill ratio is a myth. There were exaggerations of claims on both sides which probably brought that ratio down to maybe 5 or 4 to 1 if you include Korean, Soviet and Chinese pilots. Against the Soviets it could be less than 2 to 1 depending who you believe.

Both aircraft were built similar, technicially the F-86 was way more advanced however the simplicity of the Mig-15 made it a good "peasant's fighter." Although the UTI trainer version was made to address the aircraft's handling characteristics, it could still be a difficult aircraft to fly, especially if you got it slow on landing where it tended to "snake."


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> The MIG however proved to have a considerably faster rate of climb than the Sabre, and could operate at a greater altitude than its American counterpart.
> 
> In addition the MIG was armed with cannon rather than the machine guns in the Sabre. 1,500 machine gun bullets sometimes being fired to bring down a MIG, whilst only a few cannon shells could inflict considerable damage on the high flying B29 Superfortresses that the Americans were using for their bombing raids.
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

Whats funny if you took a Mig-15 and T-33 (F-80) and took their tails off and examined the engine bays they look identical. Imagine that!


----------



## Jank (Nov 5, 2007)

On the issue of the ue of .50 cal., keep in mind that the .50 was finally judged insufficient even with all six guns packed into the nose and with the cyclic rate having increased from about 700rpm to over 1,000rpm through the employment of the M3 instead of the M2.

The distances were far greater, the time you had the target in your sights was far less and these new aircraft were built considerably tougher in order to withstand higher speed and G force.


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 5, 2007)

Indeed. I'm surprised that they were built with .50's in the first place as we had started to use 20mm in several other aircraft, like the Corsair. I heard that you could feel the MiG's cannon fire in your Sabre's pedals because of the huge blast each shot created.


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 5, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Whats funny if you took a Mig-15 and T-33 (F-80) and took their tails off and examined the engine bays they look identical. Imagine that!



I could see that do to the fact that alot of info came from the Germans...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

Also keep in mind that the .50 used by the F-86 in Korea were using incendiary rounds in many cases


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

Haztoys said:


> I could see that do to the fact that alot of info came from the Germans...



I actually think its because some Ruskie had a chance to see a P-80 undergoing an engine change somewhere. I don't thing the entire structure was copies, just the basis of the engine installation configuration.


----------



## Jank (Nov 5, 2007)

I believe API (Armor Piercing Incindiary) became standard use in WWII.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2007)

Jank said:


> On the issue of the ue of .50 cal., keep in mind that the .50 was finally judged insufficient even with all six guns packed into the nose and with the cyclic rate having increased from about 700rpm to over 1,000rpm through the employment of the M3 instead of the M2.
> 
> The distances were far greater, the time you had the target in your sights was far less and these new aircraft were built considerably tougher in order to withstand higher speed and G force.



Jank all your points are true - but the primary reason that spun from most of the conversations I heard were inability to create fire and blast at 35,000-45,000 feet to to lack of oxygen to sustain them. Nobody seemed disappointed at lower altitude performance.

When we (family) came back from Japan in dec 1950 to Eglin AFB the USAF was seriously looking at 15mm w/explosive and api.. I still have a few..easy conversion from M2 with basically a barrel/chamber change (necked up .50 cal) but at the end of the day went 20mm in 1951 for all new programs. Even the F-89A had 6 x20mm before all rocket..


----------



## JoeB (Nov 5, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> 1. Except for some Russian, Czech and Polish volunteer pilots using tactics learnt from the Luftwaffe during WWII the inexperienced Chinese and Korean pilots proved no match for veteran US aces
> 2. Despite a loss rate of 10 to 1


1. *That* has elements of myth. The MiG opposition in Korea from Nov 1 1950 (when they first appeared) until September 1951 was almost entirely composed of regular fighter units of the Soviet AF's. A few Chinese units fought in the winter of 50-51 but not in numbers till Sep '51, first NK unit November '51. Not until 1953 were a majority of the MiG's non-Soviet AF. This is voluminously documented in declassified Soviet records and books based on them; and there's no mention of any Czechs, Poles, etc. There are combats in pre Sept 1951 where the opposition is described as either 'honcho's', 'bandit trains' of inexperienced presumably Chinese/NK pilots led by a few 'honcho's', or all inexperienced, where you can see in Soviet accounts it's the same Soviet units, even the same *guys, by name*, called honcho's in one case, inexperienced in another. Perceptions in combat are tricky. But from fall of 1951 this perception came true, Soviet, Chinese and eventually NK MiG-15 units were in the same air space, experienced and inexperienced, though they generally did not fly intermingled with one another.

2. That's not a 'myth', it's just the ratio between credited US victories and official US air combat losses. It's the same situation we encounter with many or most WWII combat results still quoted. It's not always possible to know the actual losses on both sides. But in Korea it's pretty well known overall, 319 Soviet AF MiG-15's lost in air combat (best documented number IMO among several in the same ballpark), 224 PLAAF (their official number, combat only), and probably at least several dozen, but not likely more than a 100, NK, say 50. 78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage. Not all but the great majority of those MiG losses were to F-86's. So the Sabre:MiG ratio was ~6+:1 in reality overall, *less* of a discount than would need to be applied to most US WWII ratio's of credited victories to official losses.

One can estimate it separately v the Soviets and Chinese/NK's based on proportion of claims against F-86's (it comes out around 5:1 and 11:1 respectively if you assume all MiG claims were equally [not very] accurate). But that's somewhat artificial IMO. The US pilots didn't know their opposition in detail (things incorrectly assumed about the MiG pilots at the time are still repeated now, see point 1), so could hardly 'ignore the Chinese and NK's and focus on the Soviets'. If you saw a MiG flying in a straight line, that's the one you were going to go after  (as in Gabreski's comment to that effect after one of his Korean victories).

Joe


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 5, 2007)

JoeB said:


> 1. 2. That's not a 'myth', it's just the ratio between



One thing I would like to point out is that for the communist's air defence not only the F-86 Sabres but also other UN airplanes must have been very important target.

Naturally the scores craimed by the Soviet pilots include F-80s, F-84s, F-51s and even some F-94s. 

This superb link helped my understanding on the air part of the conflict greatly.

KORWALD Date of Loss Report


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

Great info guys...

Joe B - you state "78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage." Ever consider the same train of thought from US combat reports of "damaged" Migs? How many Migs made it to their Manchurian homes just to be scrapped? That could change the "ratio" but as discussed previously an exact count of this is an "elusive enigma."

To me if the pilot makes it back to base but his aircraft is a write off I wouldn't give that credit to the opposition - my opinion...


----------



## JoeB (Nov 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info guys...
> Joe B - you state "78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage." Ever consider the same train of thought from US combat reports of "damaged" Migs? ...


But I'm not counting MiG losses per *US* combat reports, but rather by Soviet and Chinese reports of their losses. Just like I'm not counting F-86 losses according to Soviet and Chinese claims or victory credits, but by US loss records.

IOW assuming the 319 and 224 are correct, they already include a/c credited as 'probable' or 'damaged' by the US but actually destroyed, while a fair % of US 'destroyed' credits were mistakes or duplicates, as in every other air war pretty much. Let's take a specific example. The first MiG was credited destroyed by USAF F-80 Nov 8, 1950. Soviet records have a combat at the same time that day, but no loss; That MiG is included in the US victory tally but not in the Soviet 319 loss tally. The next day a USN Panther was credited with a MiG and this loss is reflected in Soviet records, it's included in the US tally and the 319. Two days after that, Nov 11, an F-80 was credited with a 'probable' MiG, but the damaged MiG crashed and was destroyed on landing, killing its Soviet pilot; it's included in the 319, but not in the US tally.

The Soviet and Chinese losses of 319 and 224 are not sacred any more than the US 78. I know of a few additions to the Soviet total (but I'd rather stick with a reasonably accurate, I believe, published number, and not have everything be 'I say'). And colleagues who study PLAAF history have told me of at least a few extra's in their case was well.

But, just mathematically in a ratio, adding a few to the small denominator, 78, makes more difference than adding a few to the big numerator (319+224+50?). And I specifically know those extra F-86 losses, so there's no reason to omit that information from the analysis.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2007)

Thanks for the info Joe - so I guess it would be fair to say (based on your analysis) that if you include all communist combatants the F-86 still maintains about a 6 to 1 kill ratio? Even if we had the ability to further dissect the US losses it still seems the F-86 still had a upper hand on the Soviet flown Mig-15s.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 6, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> One thing I would like to point out is that for the communist's air defence not only the F-86 Sabres but also other UN airplanes must have been very important target.
> 
> Naturally the scores craimed by the Soviet pilots include F-80s, F-84s, F-51s and even some F-94s.


The MiG's downed about 90 F-86's and about 100 other UN a/c (official totals 78 and around another 75), so a considerable but not vast number of other a/c. As I mentioned, F-86's destroyed the great majority of MiG's lost, actual MiG kills by other types is within the margin of error of what the MiG loss total actually is (B-29's were credited with a fair number of MiG's, but almost none of those credits check out as real MiG losses). The MiG ratio of course improves markedly if we include their non-F-86 victories, as was always known. 

In the big picture of an air war, yes we have to note the actual mission and overall effect of a given plane. But OTOH if we want to compare fighter effectiveness, it tends to distort the picture to include non-fighter targets of fighters, because some fighters had plenty of those to go after, and some didn't. For example the F-86 had hardly any non MiG-15 targets by which to run up its score; in one combat v. Chinese prop bombers it practically anihilated them, even though MiG's also intervened. If it had that opportunity every day, it's ratio would be far higher.

Same thing is true in WWII, when comparing planes like F4F and F6F that engaged lots of non-fighters, with say P-51 which encountered few non-fighters. Fighter v. fighter kill ratio (according to each side's loss records) is not the only measure, but it's one important measure, and the F-86 v MiG-15 measure I'm trying to clarify.

Btw the big 'haul' of MiG claims of F-94's was July 21, 1951, at least 7 credited. The actual opponents were F9F-2's of VMF-311, one was lost. Not only does the time and place match, but this Soviet gun camera shot from the combat pretty clearly shows an F9F (there were no F-94's in Korea at the time anyway).





Joe


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2007)

Found a link showing Soviet Aces in Korea....

Any comments or corrections???





Russian Aces of the Korean War


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2007)

Again great info Joe - I might of mentioned this before but I seen some Soviet sources "claiming" something like 683 F-86s when something like 683 Sabers actually rotated through Korea! Same with the P-80 - they claimed almost the same amount that were actually in theater.

I've seen the information on the F-94s. I believe F-94Bs were in Korea the last year of the war.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 6, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Found a link showing Soviet Aces in Korea....
> 
> Any comments or corrections???


Here's an alternative accounting (by me) for Nikolai Sutyagin's score which gets a pretty different answer, dealing with the statements in the original accounting one by one. The original doesn't deal at all with competing claims by other Soviet (or Chinese) pilots. If a Soviet ace was credited and any US plane was downed in air combat, the credit is viewed as verified, even if that was the only US loss that day and many other MiG pilots were also credited with victories the same day. That's misleading IMO. In addition there are quite a few errors as to what types Sutyagin was credited with on what day, which by coicidence or not all end up making his US record-verified score appear higher. As a general introduction those articles might be OK but I would take the correlation/verfication with US records part with many grains of salt.
Acepilots Discussions

Joe


----------



## fer-de-lance (Nov 11, 2007)

> For example the F-86 had hardly any non MiG-15 targets by which to run up its score; in one combat v. Chinese prop bombers it practically anihilated them, even though MiG's also intervened. If it had that opportunity every day, it's ratio would be far higher.



The result of the "Taehwa-do Massacre" was that there were no further attempts by the Communist forces to use bombers during the Korean War.

The debâcle may have had even more far-reaching consequences for the later Taiwan Strait Conflict. 

The PLAAF realized how vulnerable their bombers were which limited their use to attacks on Nationalist-held islands (Yijiang-shan and Ta-chen in 1955) which were at the limit of the range of Nationalist F-47N fighters. Even during the heavy shelling of Matsu, Wu-chiu and Quemoy at various times in the 1950's, the PLAAF were inhibited from using their bombers.

The Taehwa-do battle was all the more remarkable because of the US ability to concentrate the whole 4th FIW at the right spot and at almost exact time when the bombers arrived. We now know it was excellent work by USAF signals intelligence.

Chinese sources also confirmed that the one MiG claimed by George Davis was, in fact from the Chinese 7th air regiment, 3rd (Fighter) Air Division. The pilot, Mou, Dun-kang (牟敦康) was a deputy leader of an 8-plane flight (副大队长). Chinese accounts claimed that Mou lost control and spun in but Davis had gun camera footage to show that Mou had some help.

It is also clear that the damaged fighters in the Chinese units subsequently written off were not listed as losses. They are listed as ... "damaged" (surprise, surprise!)


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 27, 2007)

something that might interest TV viewers in North America in Dec 19 2007 the PBS show NOVA a premiere science show is doing a piece on the Mig /Sabre called Missing In Mig Alley . I'll wager it will be superior to Dogfights by a fair margin if equal to their previous docs 
NOVA | Missing in MiG Alley | PBS


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2007)

I gotta remember the 19th....


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 27, 2007)

"Hear it from the horse's mouth" would be the saying I guess, but here is a short film by the USAF on it's evaluation of the Mig-15. A wee bit of propaganda near the end, as the narrator is sure to tell you of the 13:1 ratio of superiority over the Mig. Interestingly enough, no comparison made on the weapons on the two aircraft.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_yFydYu1o_


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> "Hear it from the horse's mouth" would be the saying I guess, but here is a short film by the USAF on it's evaluation of the Mig-15. A wee bit of propaganda near the end, as the narrator is sure to tell you of the 13:1 ratio of superiority over the Mig. Interestingly enough, no comparison made on the weapons on the two aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They both had advantages and disadvantages. 

The 50s' with radar computing gunsight was more accurate, much faster rate of fire and had a greater effective range. Above 40,000 feet, the API's would seldom start a fire until the MiG dropped to lower altitude and more oxygen available.

The MiG had far more firepower and was superior in short range in context of lethality, but slower rate of fire and ballistics meant less chance of a hit in a manuevering fight. Against B-29s, neither of these 'deficiencies' mattered.

An intangible was that the F-86 was considered a more stable gun platform also.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2007)

Former MiG-15 drivers I got to meet gave the same description of the MiGs big guns as Yeager made about the P-39's cannon - at range it seemed like you were lobbing bricks. 

As a maintainer I loved the MiG-15 for its simplicity and those same characteristics were inherited in the L-29. Even though the F-86 was way more complicated and harder to work on, it was quite evident it was the superior aircraft in many respects.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 12, 2007)

Seeing how the Canadair Mk VI was the premiere Sabre with consideration given to the Aussie version with the 20mm I thought I'd share this little tidbit i found it's humourous and enlightning

This little story is directed at those of our group who did not have the opportunity to fly the Mk 6 Sabre. I post it here as a tribute to a thoroughbred and with the hope that the statute of limitations has run out.

Sometime in the late '50s I was tasked to do an acceptance test flight on a nearly-new un-tanked Sabre 6 that had just come out of its storage cocoon. The machine had just enough hours on it to do the pre-ferry flight testing and make the trip to France. What a beauty: no twists from over-stressing, no boot marks up and down the wings and a canopy that was crystal clear! To cap it all off, it was a one-in-a-million day for Grostenquin: CAFB (CAVU for the politically correct).

The test card took very little time and I ended up at angels 40 with a bit of fuel left. I happened to see a con reasonably close and gave chase. It turned out to be a Hun (F-100) dressed in aerobatic team livery all by himself, probably doing a test hop too. I was able to close on him until he noticed me and plugged in the burner and started to climb. I was able to follow quite easily as my machine was now getting pretty light and would climb at .95 mach at a good rate of up. The Hun pilot was getting a bit antsy as we passed through angels 50 and he still had this "model T" on his tail. He would come out of burner and I would close up easily, so he'd plug in the burner again. This went on 'til we passed through angels 54 and still going up at a good rate! I remember it clear as yesterday, I had .96 and still had 1000 feet/min up. I think he was getting a bit low on fuel with all the burner pumping he had to do so had resumed flying in normal power. This allowed me to pull abreast of him an give a waggle. He shook his head and stared as I broke away, momentarily touching 4 "G" albeit killing all speed in the process.

At this point I had 200 pounds of fuel on board. GT was right under the nose so a power off vertical descent and quick circuit got me onto the ground with enough juice to taxi in with.

Tex Gehman - 430 Sqn


----------



## ppopsie (Dec 12, 2007)

Beautiful story! 

I only regret that I couldn't afford to do that. Clean and clear canopy and smell of a brandnew aircraft is always good.

Wait! If so, the same kind of situation could happen if you fly a fighter of the other side of similar performance and characteristics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2007)

Great story Pb - I think that sums it up right there!


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 12, 2007)

Great story pb!


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 22, 2007)

i agree Flyboyj!!!!8)


----------



## ppopsie (Dec 22, 2007)

I have been on Sabre vs Mig for years. The F-86 is beautiful and graceful but the Mig-15 is so small and cute!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2007)

I have love for both of them as I had to opportunity to work on them and actaully fly in a MiG-15 UTI, but I have to say I always had a yearning desire to get a MiG-15 within "the pipper."


----------



## ppopsie (Dec 22, 2007)

FLYBOYJ sama,

What was the Mig's quality, or workmanship? I understand the F-86 was manufactured with then highest production technology. Was the Mig easy to maintain?


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 22, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Seeing how the Canadair Mk VI was the premiere Sabre with consideration given to the Aussie version with the 20mm



Pb brings up an interesting question, which was the better Sabre varient produced, the CAC Avon Sabre or the Canadair version? I ask because my knowledge of early jets is sorely lacking and I have read over the years that each version mentioned claims to be the better of the two. Could someone please enlighten me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> FLYBOYJ sama,
> 
> What was the Mig's quality, or workmanship? I understand the F-86 was manufactured with then highest production technology. Was the MiG easy to maintain?



The F-86's quality was unsurpassed and I could say the same for Canadair built Sabers. I do know that there were some F-86s built with explosive bolts in the wing root area that caused some stress cracking. With the triple redundant hydraulic system of the F-86 there always seems to be some kind of little hydraulic leak or seep somewhere. 

I worked on 2 MiG-15s. One of them I helped assemble and it was from Poland. It was a UTI and was "factory converted" from a single seat version. I think PZL did the mod and if I remember right it was done in 1956. The overall airframe was simple and well built, but the areas where the aircraft was modified had some issues. In the "turtleback" of the aft canopy were numerous clenched rivets, single and double sized rivets, drill starts and tool marks. It looks like a bunch of monkeys did the mod. The 2nd MiG was from China and was basically built like the first MiG without all the defects noted. I just did line maintenance on that one and it was a very easy aircraft to work on. The biggest issue was maintaining the brake system with nitrogen which is typical of all east-block built aircraft. 

The MiG-15 was built well but a very simple aircraft. The Soviets basically took a first generation jet aircraft (systems wise) and swept back the wings and called it good. Although both aircraft are very endearing to me, I would always take the F-86 if I was placed in a hypothetical combat situation and I would also give the edge to the Saber as far as quality goes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> Pb brings up an interesting question, which was the better Sabre varient produced, the CAC Avon Sabre or the Canadair version? I ask because my knowledge of early jets is sorely lacking and I have read over the years that each version mentioned claims to be the better of the two. Could someone please enlighten me.


Personally I think the Avon Sabers were the top of the line. I think the Canadiar Mk IVs were better than the F-86F, but in either case I think if flown right and with a little luck the F-86 will maul a MiG-15 9 times out of 10.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 22, 2007)

Not that I'm a big numbers guy but I can't seem to find a "side by side "comparison of the 2 , did the CAC version keep the slats. Any how I read the articles included in the link below and there are some great stories the 2nd link being my favorite.the 3rd link has the MK6 numbers
Sabre Jet Classics
Flying The RCAF Sabre: Mark 6
SPAADS HOME PAGE


----------



## Mitya (Jun 7, 2008)

Hobilar said:


> Despite a loss rate of 10 to 1, by the time of the cease-fire the Communists had nearly 1,000 MIG-15s operational compared with only just over 250 US Sabres some of which were equipped as Fighter-Bombers.


Realy!!!?  
FLYBOYJ the rights that is a myth. To read even here:  -15 
 (26.06.50 - 27.07.53)
 (26.06.50 - 27.07.53)
 , 1952 
So to say, a sight from the side.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2008)

Mitya said:


> Realy!!!?
> FLYBOYJ the rights that is a myth. To read even here:  -15
> (26.06.50 - 27.07.53)
> (26.06.50 - 27.07.53)
> ...



Not sure what you're trying to say but I believe the second post shows total Soviet claims from Korea, showing that over 635+ were claimed by Communist forces. About 630 Sabers rotated through Korea from 1950 - 1953. So every F-86 in Korea was destroyed?!?!?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

Mitya’s stats shows that from 08.51 - 12.51 a total of 71 F-86 were supposedly destroyed
What do the US stats report about this period, on behalf of employed aircrafts and kills, would be interesting to find out. 

From what I have read so far on this subject, I conclude that the Mig-Pilots had no G-suits, no aircon no Cadillac like aircraft. The Mig15’s data’s seem superior to the F-86, the armament was far superior. The quality of the Sabre in contra to the MiG is undisputable.

Personally I find the loss statistic of 792 MiG’s, with a loss of only 76 Sabres-a victory ratio of 10-to-1 indeed very hard to belief – such as Rudel’s Tank killer claims. Especially since there are no records which e.g. show 159 US air aces with an average of 5 aircrafts not to mention Mig’s. Also a total rotation of 630 Sabres would account for 1.25 per pilot or aircraft. 

Is this claim based on MiG15 contra F-86 engagements or a total summation of aircraft losses regarding these two types during Korea?


If the far better trained US pilots with a G-suit would have been equipped with the MiG15 would you think that the F-86 would have proofed to be the better aircraft in regards to combat ability?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 8, 2008)

the heavier armament on the Mig also had a drawback it had a low rate of fire, giving the Sabre guys that xtra millisecond needed to being avoid nailed.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> the heavier armament on the Mig also had a drawback it had a low rate of fire, giving the Sabre guys that xtra millisecond needed to being avoid nailed.



Hello pbfoot,

Yes certainly true, but on the other hand I wouldn’t want to get hit by a 37mm. But you have a good point there, maybe the MiG’s weren’t able to utilize those cannons in jet to jet combat - which could explain this "outrageous"  kill ratio.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> Mitya’s stats shows that from 08.51 - 12.51 a total of 71 F-86 were supposedly destroyed
> What do the US stats report about this period, on behalf of employed aircrafts and kills, would be interesting to find out.


I don't know what the actual losses were in that period but it is my belief that during the entire war the US lost just under 100 F-86s. Total there were about 250 lost to all causes and there may be some of those that were actually attributed to combat.


Kruska said:


> From what I have read so far on this subject, I conclude that the Mig-Pilots had no G-suits, no aircon no Cadillac like aircraft. The Mig15’s data’s seem superior to the F-86, the armament was far superior. The quality of the Sabre in contra to the MiG is undisputable.


Correct


Kruska said:


> Personally I find the loss statistic of 792 MiG’s, with a loss of only 76 Sabres-a victory ratio of 10-to-1 indeed very hard to belief – such as Rudel’s Tank killer claims. Especially since there are no records which e.g. show 159 US air aces with an average of 5 aircrafts not to mention Mig’s. Also a total rotation of 630 Sabres would account for 1.25 per pilot or aircraft.
> 
> Is this claim based on MiG15 contra F-86 engagements or a total summation of aircraft losses regarding these two types during Korea?


I think this is a mix of all MiG operators Soviet, Chinese and Korean. From articles I seen it seems at times the Soviets would like to distance themselves from the performance of their North Korean and Chinese allies, but during the course of battle it was sometimes difficult to ascertain what MiG was from what operator.

As earlier stated, based on the earlier discussion, I'd put the kill-loss ratio to about 6 to 1, and if you went Soviets vs. US, about 2.5 to one, this is based on each sides own loss admittance, but again it seems this information from the Soviet camp was a long time coming.



Kruska said:


> If the far better trained US pilots with a G-suit would have been equipped with the MiG15 would you think that the F-86 would have proofed to be the better aircraft in regards to combat ability?
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



I still think the F-86 was a better aircraft. Triple redundant hydraulic systems, better environmental system, better built and better egress systems. To me it would seem punching out of a MiG-15 would at least result in some broken bones, and the possibility of severed limbs. i base this also on the size of the cockpit.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

Thanks for the information. I think it is a bit like 1944/45: formidable trained US pilots in a P-47 or P-51 Cadillac with a high combat ability against highly able 190D-9’s or 109K’s with wooden rudder, inferior airframes, high maintenance requirements and less skilled pilots.

On the punching out part you are certainly correct. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to exist reliable or partially reliable stats about actual MiG15 and F-86 dogfight outcomes. It just seems to be a summation of total losses due to combat in general and not in regards from one a/c to another. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> Thanks for the information. I think it is a bit like 1944/45: formidable trained US pilots in a P-47 or P-51 Cadillac with a high combat ability against highly able 190D-9’s or 109K’s with wooden rudder, inferior airframes, high maintenance requirements and less skilled pilots.
> 
> ...



Agree to a point - the the case with the MiG-15 there were just some systems that weren't very advanced but like the typical Soviet design philosophy, keep it simple, cheap, and make sure it works.


----------



## renrich (Jun 8, 2008)

Does anyone know the statistics of Mig 15s versus Navy jets in the Korean War? I believe the Navy used Panthers and Banshees. I know there was one encounter off North Korea where F9Fs shot down a couple of Migs and it was kept quiet because recordings of radio transmittals indicated the Migs had Russians in them.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 8, 2008)

The MiG also had manual controls iirc, so high-speed control was difficult (heavy controls). 

The La-15 (and later derivatives) had more advanced systems, with boosted controls, had a cleaner airframe, more maneuverable, was well liked by pilots, and could dive through Mach 1 and maintain control (unlike the MiG). 
But was more complex and not as easy to mass produce, was more expensive, and required more maintence, so they preferred the MiG.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The MiG also had manual controls iirc, so high-speed control was difficult (heavy controls).


In the MiGs I seen it almost looks like the stick was extended by a few inches to give the pilot more leverage.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 9, 2008)

renrich said:


> Does anyone know the statistics of Mig 15s versus Navy jets in the Korean War? I believe the Navy used Panthers and Banshees. I know there was one encounter off North Korea where F9Fs shot down a couple of Migs and it was kept quiet because recordings of radio transmittals indicated the Migs had Russians in them.



Hello renrich,

Thats all I got from WIKI,

F9F-2s, F9F-3s and F9F-5s served with distinction in the Korean War, downing two Yak-9s and five Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15s with a loss of one F9F. On 3 July 1950, LT (j.g.) Leonard H. Plog of U.S. Navy's VF-51 flying an F9F-3 scored the first air victory of the war by shooting down a Yak-9. The first MiG-15 downed was on 9 November 1950 by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander William (Bill) Amen of VF-111 "Sundowners" Squadron flying an F9F-2B. Two more were downed on 18 November 1950 , and the other two were downed on the 18 November 1952

It flew 78,000 sorties, so I presume this aircraft must have been involved in a lot but not in interception or as a fighter.

The Banshee and other USN fighters had limited exposure to hostile enemy aircraft because they operated far out of the range of enemy fighters operating from China. Air-to-air combat missions, such as patrols in the Yalu River area, were primarily assigned to F-86 Sabres Consequently, the Banshee would score no victories nor suffer any losses in air-to-air combat, although three F2H-2s were lost to anti-aircraft gunfire.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2008)

Thanks Kruska, that is interesting info. Not a big statistical sample but still interesting. The Panthers were armed with 4-20mm cannon and had a higher Mach number than the P80. My suspicion is that though the F9F did not have the performance of the Mig15, the training and experience of the Navy pilots would have made up for the discrepancy in performance.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes, because a lot of Russian policy was based on an overwhelming attack swamping the enemy. The Russians really were not well equipped for a war like Vietnam where it was drawn out fighting. I thought their aircraft were designed to be flown for a certain period of time and then the Russians dumped them and put a new aircraft of the same type or a new type into the line to replace it. ..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

HealzDevo said:


> Yes, because a lot of Russian policy was based on an overwhelming attack swamping the enemy. The Russians really were not well equipped for a war like Vietnam where it was drawn out fighting. I thought their aircraft were designed to be flown for a certain period of time and then the Russians dumped them and put a new aircraft of the same type or a new type into the line to replace it. ..


The Soviets built simple machines in very large numbers - totally contradicting what you're saying. Do you have a source to back up your statement?


----------



## JoeB (Jun 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Does anyone know the statistics of Mig 15s versus Navy jets in the Korean War? I believe the Navy used Panthers and Banshees. I know there was one encounter off North Korea where F9Fs shot down a couple of Migs and it was kept quiet because recordings of radio transmittals indicated the Migs had Russians in them.


F9F's of USN and USMC had 11 encounters with MiG-15's in Korea. Victories were scored on Nov 9 1950 (first victory in manned jet combat which is supported in opposing records), Nov 18 1950 (2 officially credited, 1 actually downed) and Nov 18 1952 (2 officially credited, 3 actually downed). 'Actual' is per detailed Soviet accounts for each case. One F9F-2, of Marine sdn VMF-311, was downed by MiG's July 21, 1951, pilot POW.

On opponents VMF-311 and -115 fought inconclusively with the Chinese 48th Fighter Regiment March 26, 1953, the opponent isn't known in one other inconclusive fight but probably Chinese, the opponents in all other case were Soviet AF units. The specially sensitive factor about the Nov 18 1952 combat was that the Soviet a/c were flying directly from the Soviet Union (v carrier ops in northeast North Korea), not from bases in China as usual. The Soviet 196th Fighter Regiment (based at the Antung, now usually written Dandong, field complex in China) scored the victory July 21, '51; they were credited with 7 F-94's in the encounter.

Fighter F2H's had one brief brush with MiG's also Nov 18 1952. Recon F2H-2P's of VMJ-1 were attacked by MiG's on a number of occasions, 2 were damaged March 11, 1952 one seriously (by the Soviet 821st Fighter Regiment).

Navy F3D jet nightfighters of VC-4 Det. 44N flying from land supplemented Marine F3D's of VMF(N)-513 late in the war v MiG'15 night fighters, mainly supporting B-29 night operations. One VC-44 a/c was lost July 2 1953 after radio transmissions indicating they were under attack by MiG's, though curiously no correspoding MiG claim has come to light (and there *are* specific MiG claims corresponding to the vast majority of other losses to MiG's). The USMC F3D's were credited with 5 MiG-15's, but only one of those can be unambiguously confirmed in opposing accounts, as of now.

This is USN/USMC jets v Mig-15's, only, sources are primary records.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Jun 10, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to exist reliable or partially reliable stats about actual MiG15 and F-86 dogfight outcomes. It just seems to be a summation of total losses due to combat in general and not in regards from one a/c to another.


No, there's lots of detail from both sides on individual combats, and on US side, individual planes, not only grand totals. I've reviewed a lot of that stuff and came up with estimate of actual F-86 air combat losses in Korea around 85-90 rather than 78, including planes which returned safely but whose air combat damage was never repaired. A few planes could be argued here and there but no way to reasonably and objectively come up with a much higher number than that from the detailed records. 

On combats, the specific Soviet claims against F-86's can be matched in almost all cases with reports of combats at the same dates, times and places in USAF records, the losses sustained just differ. In case of Chinese claims and losses there's less detail but that mainly means we can't apportion US losses accurately between them, it hardly seems likely the Chinese official loss total (224 MiG-15's, theirs only, air combat only) is seriously overstated, why would it be? The most detailed published Russian source to date on that air war (German/Seidov 'Krasnye d'iavoli...") gives a total of 319, Soviet only, air combat losses and mentions 295 case by case as I count it. The 1953 NK defector said the NK's lost 100 MiG-15's to all causes (and he had the Soviet/Chinese total losses about right, it later turned out). In case we did the same close analysis of losses in detailed a/c records, the MiG losses might rise slightly too, but anyway add up what we do have and 6+:1 head to head F-86 v MiG-15 is pretty solid as a ballpark, as solid or more than most WWII 'real' ratio's and backed by as high or higher % of detailed examples. On not taking 10:1 ratio literally, sure we shouldn't, nor take claimed ratio's from WWII literally either (most WWII claimed ratio's are more overstated than this one).

Also as in WWII cases, doubt about 6+ ratio must be based on claiming that detailed (then-) secret (since declassified) records actually systematically understate losses, or are seriously incomplete, even when they appear quite complete to those who've actually reviewed them. There was a basically similar discussion about Japanese fighter losses in their raids over Darwin Australia in 1943, when Zeroes apparently bested Spitfire V's by a ratio similar to that of F-86 v MiG-15 in Korea. It was stated 'there isn't good info on those Japanese losses' or 'it's very hard to estimate them' when in fact recently published numbers are based on the original action reports (so-called kodochosho in IJN) of the unit involved in almost all the combats, which survived the war intact. How about if other units were involved? (multiple Japanese accounts say that was the unit on the specific missions), the argument goes on in similar vein: 'prove you're not a camel',  

Similarly, if one firmly believes that the USAF records *must* understate air combat losses in Korea seriously, you can't *prove* otherwise over the internet. All I can point to is the complete absence, AFAIK, of anyone who has actually reviewed them in detail and still thinks that's plausible. All published comments 'casting doubt' on USAF records in Korea, that I've ever read, are by people who've never reviewed them.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2008)

JoeB, many thanks for your post. I believe the Nov. 18, 1952, encounter was the one that was kept under wraps because of Soviet pilots. There at one time was a website online about the fight. If memory serves seven Migs were intercepted by a CAP of a division of F9Fs. One Panther had a fuel flow problem and had to head for the carrier along with his wing man. That left two F9Fs versus seven Migs although the wing man got back into the fight after his section leader landed on the carrier. The Panthers had a donnybrook with the Migs with two claimed and one probable. The F9s had some damage but all landed safely. Makes one wonder about Soviet pilots and the vaunted Mig15 versus the old straight winged F9F. Go Navy!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 11, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Similarly, if one firmly believes that the USAF records *must* understate air combat losses in Korea seriously, you can't *prove* otherwise over the internet. All I can point to is the complete absence, AFAIK, of anyone who has actually reviewed them in detail and still thinks that's plausible. All published comments 'casting doubt' on USAF records in Korea, that I've ever read, are by people who've never reviewed them.
> 
> Joe



Hello JoeB, thanks for your data’s and research efforts.

My intension is not at all to downgrade the F-86 but to get a realistic impression of Korea contra Vietnam and modern times in regards to air superiority of the USAF.

In case of MiG15 contra F-86 combat:

So if I total your figures I would come up with 643 MiG15’s shot down by F-86’s, according to FLYBOY about the same number of F-86 “rotated” through the entire Korean War. In return this would account for 643 US pilot/kills taking into account certain multiple kill pilots it would still upkeep the information that about 360 (please see below) US Pilots achieved MiG15 kills. And if lets say 800 MiG15 were shot down then this figure would even increase to around 550 US F-86 pilots with MiG15 kills.

But so far I have never seen a statistic that would name more then 50 US F-86 pilots being awarded with MiG 15 kills, and these 50 add up to 334.5 kills (and these claims are probably errand at 30-50% such as the kills during the 2nd WW) so IMO something doesn’t figure out or I might have very wrong information in regards to US MiG killers during Korea.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## JoeB (Jun 11, 2008)

Kruska said:


> So if I total your figures I would come up with 643 MiG15’s shot down by F-86’s, according to FLYBOY about the same number of F-86 “rotated” through the entire Korean War.
> 
> But so far I have never seen a statistic that would name more then 50 US F-86 pilots being awarded with MiG 15 kills, and these 50 add up to 334.5 kills (and these claims are probably errand at 30-50% such as the kills during the 2nd WW) so IMO something doesn’t figure out or I might have very wrong information in regards to US MiG killers during Korea.


I guesstimate the NK's lost around 50 MiG's in combat and the rest in accidents. Another indirect piece of evidence is that the NK's claimed (to the Russians) they'd downed 44 F-86's. The Chinese claimed 211 F-86's for 224 MiG's: it may have been the tendency to claim at least approximately as many as you lost in combat. Those claims btw are in addition to the Soviet claim of at least 642 F-86's, so around 900 F-86's claimed altogether v around 90 F-86 air combat losses, a very high overclaim ratio, but that appears to be what happened. Anyway the total MiG combat loss might have been a little under 600, and 20 or so were lost to a/c other than F-86's. 

Thompson and McLaren in their book "MiG Alley" gave brief individual histories for all F-86's they found to have been used in Korea, 600-some. I haven't double checked that list, I've focused instead on a/c known to have been damaged from daily action reports (were they ever repaired?) and those losses attributed to non-combat causes where a MiG claim might plausibly match instead. But, I know how they got the list (looked at the Individual Aircraft Record Card of every F-86 and see which were assigned to units in Korea during the war, tedious but straightforward), and I've no reason to doubt its basic correctness.

Werrell in "Sabres over MiG Alley" estimated 1000-1200 pilots flew combat missions in USAF F-86's in Korea (not all of them USAF pilots, included also USN, USMC, and Allied exchange pilots). 

Per the USAF official credits list 365 USAF pilots were credited with victories in the F-86 in the Korean War. That includes fractional scores <1, and a few victories v non-MiG-15's, but doesn't include the exchange pilots.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

Kruska said:


> So if I total your figures I would come up with 643 MiG15’s shot down by F-86’s, according to FLYBOY about the same number of F-86 “rotated” through the entire Korean War.


Actually you have it backwards Kruska - Soviet sources have claimed about 643~ Sabers were shot down over Korea - almost the same number rotated through Korea by the USAF.

JoeB - always great posts!!!!


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2008)

Actually, if one looks at the kills of US Navy F9Fs versus Mig 15s, it supports strongly the lopsided kill ratio of the F86. The F9F would not be nearly as capable as the F86 in ACM.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 12, 2008)

The real controversy if any about kill ratio in Korea is basically the same for F-86 or F9F. Sometimes the F-86 controversy is presented as one about USAF claims, but it's really not. The official air combat losses of the Soviets and Chinese, plus reasonably estimate of NK MiG-15 losses, add up to a fairly high % of the F-86 official victories, by WWII standards; and by same token WWII experience would have said not to take 800 credited victories literally as 800 downed MiG's, even before any of the opposing losses were made public. There's nothing very surprising there. The suprise is that Soviet and Chinese claims revealed since 90's, compiled in secret during the war (ie. 'propaganda' is not the explanation), exceed the USAF recorded air combat losses by so much. I would conclude that, basically, that's just what happened, the claims by MiG's over F-86's remarkably exceeded actual air combat losses of F-86's (as much as 10:1; bomber v fighter claims in WWII were sometimes as overstated, but fighter v fighter claims seldom were over such a sustained period). But not everybody accepts that.

If you look at the Soviet side of the at least 9 actions between F9F's and Soviet MiG's you find the same thing, more so actually. The only twist is that almost all Soviet claims in actions (which we can clearly see from US records were) against F9F's were erroneously recorded as F-80's, or in the one combat previously mentioned, F-94's. The Soviets claimed 15+ jets in those actions but downed just the 1 F9F. That is again, 1 F9F for which evidence which can be found in US records.

Joe


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually you have it backwards Kruska - Soviet sources have claimed about 643~ Sabers were shot down over Korea - almost the same number rotated through Korea by the USAF.
> 
> JoeB - always great posts!!!!



Hello FLYBOY,

Not really if I quote JoeB:

_the Chinese official loss total (224 MiG-15's, theirs only, air combat only) is seriously overstated, why would it be? The most detailed published Russian source to date on that air war (German/Seidov 'Krasnye d'iavoli...") gives a total of 319, Soviet only, air combat losses and mentions 295 case by case as I count it. The 1953 NK defector said the NK's lost 100 MiG-15's to all causes....._

So 224(319)Chinese + 295Soviet + 100NK = 619 or (714) MiG15 losses in contra to 80-100 F-86's.

Which would still leave my thoughts open regarding the (To my knowledge) missing 300 US pilots having/needing MiG kills.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

Kruska said:


> So 224(319)Chinese + 295Soviet + 100NK = 619 or (714) MiG15 losses in contra to 80-100 F-86's.
> 
> Which would still leave my thoughts open regarding the (To my knowledge) missing 300 US pilots having/needing MiG kills.
> 
> ...



Yes you are correct from the US side with regards to the "overclaims." My point, from some Russian sources, the say the Soviet sources destroyed over 640 F-86s. I have also read claims for over 130 F-80s claimed by MiG-15s as well.

_"If we add to such factors the usual overclaiming -in good faith, but overclaiming in the end- of any war, then we can understand why the Soviet 64th IAK claimed the unbelievable figure of 1,106 UN aircraft destroyed in the Korean War. (532 of them in the "Honcho Period," when only 142 Allied aircraft were actually downed by the Soviet MiG-15 pilots). So, many of those scores must be seen with a lot of skepticism, e.g: Mikhail Ponomaryev was credited with 11 kills, but when we analyze the dates of his claims, only 2 matched with admitted US losses! And he is not the only one."_

Russian Aces of the Korean War


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Russian sources, the say the Soviet sources destroyed over 640 F-86s. I have also read claims for over 130 F-80s claimed by MiG-15s as well.
> 
> *Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> ...



I have been to Colorado many times; may I ask you whereabouts you stay?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Thanks for the interesting link. The Russian claims would be quite a bull… . Didn’t the USAF have gun cameras as a general fixture on its aircraft? Or besides witnesses how were kills confirmed during Korea on the US side?
> 
> 
> I have been to Colorado many times; may I ask you whereabouts you stay?
> ...



Hi Kruska - I live about 20 miles west of Denver in a community called green Mountain. Do you come here to ski?

As far as the Soviet claims - as stated, I thank a lot had to do with the 1,500 Rubles they received for their efforts.

US aircraft did have gun cameras but IMO they weren't the definging factor n verifying a kill. I have read that the MiG-15 did habit of burning or smoking when damaged in the right place and that would give the impression that the aircraft was fatally wounded.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 13, 2008)

> "If we add to such factors the usual overclaiming -in good faith, but overclaiming in the end- of any war, then we can understand why the Soviet 64th IAK claimed the unbelievable figure of 1,106 UN aircraft destroyed in the Korean War. (532 of them in the "Honcho Period," when only 142 Allied aircraft were actually downed by the Soviet MiG-15 pilots). So, many of those scores must be seen with a lot of skepticism,


That author fudges facts to make Soviet claims look less overstated than they were. So he's been heavily criticized by some die-hard MiG fans for saying the claims were overstated, but still his research isn't reliable IME. Nowhere near 142 UN a/c were downed by MiG's in the period he's talking about (April '51-end Jan '52). Only around 175 UN a/c were downed by MiG's in the whole war (v 150-some official totals released immediate postwar). That link also includes his analysis of victories of the leading Soviet ace N. Sutyagin, where he concludes 12 of his 21 official victories are supported by US records. I got at most 5 supported by US records, and in each case there are other equally plausible Soviet and Chinese claims competing for the single real US loss on 5 different days, so Sutyagin's real score was very likely less than 5. I also found that the author had 'mistaken' the type and sometimes dates of Sutyagin's victory credits in a number of cases, and such mistakes always increased the number of matches to US records, never decreased it as might be expected if the mistakes were accidental. 

Re: Kruska: I don't see what the remaining question is between total US claims, and individual US claims. Go to:
Air Force Historical Research Agency - Aerial Victory Credits
search page for official victories, Air Force Historical Research Agency. Put War=Korea in the search form, and it will generate a list of credits by pilot. If you copy that into a spreadsheet and manipulate it, you'll see that the sum of individual credits is pretty close to the traditionally quoted totals of USAF victories, and again I got that 365 different F-86 pilots were credited with MiG-15's, from that list. I don't see any serious discrepancy between total victory credits and individual ones.

Victory credits v. enemy losses is of course a different topic. To reiterate, air combat losses of MiG-15's in Korea were apparently : 319 Soviet and 224 Chinese air combat losses from best Russian and Chinese sources, 50 NK air combat loss is my estimate based on defector's estimate of 100 *to all causes* (and the specific accounts of that defector, where otherwise checkable, were usually accurate). 

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Victory credits v. enemy losses is of course a different topic. To reiterate, air combat losses of MiG-15's in Korea were apparently : 319 Soviet and 224 Chinese air combat losses from best Russian and Chinese sources, 50 NK air combat loss is my estimate based on defector's estimate of 100 *to all causes* (and the specific accounts of that defector, where otherwise checkable, were usually accurate).
> 
> Joe



So with that said Joe, we're looking about 593~ MiG-15s lost during Korea in air-to-air combat.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hi Kruska - I live about 20 miles west of Denver in a community called green Mountain. Do you come here to ski?
> 
> *During my service time I came to the US and the Springs area quite often, besides my parents having lived in Woodland Park, 20min of from Springs. *
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

Yes - know the area well - I actually work in the springs.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes - know the area well - I actually work in the springs.



Yes, I somehow had a feeling that you might work at Peterson AFB

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Yes, I somehow had a feeling that you might work at Peterson AFB
> 
> Regards
> Kruska


Actually I'm at the academy, but I do go down to Peterson on occasion.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I'm at the academy, but I do go down to Peterson on occasion.



At the Academy, what a beautifull place to work. Well so I guess you are in liaison with the 10th. It’s a long time ago, but do they still display the Talons at the Chappell grounds? Just imagine 50 years of service for a jet aircraft, and it is still as good as ever, and they are supposed to stay in service till 2020 amazing isn’t it. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

Kruska said:


> At the Academy, what a beautifull place to work. Well so I guess you are in liaison with the 10th. It’s a long time ago, but do they still display the Talons at the Chappell grounds? Just imagine 50 years of service for a jet aircraft, and it is still as good as ever, and they are supposed to stay in service till 2020 amazing isn’t it.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska


I'm a civilian contractor working for the 306th FTS - the 10th ABW runs the facility.

I love working there, best job I ever had - as far as the Talons - yep - still there!


----------



## davparlr (Nov 6, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Just imagine 50 years of service for a jet aircraft, and it is still as good as ever, and they are supposed to stay in service till 2020 amazing isn’t it.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



The T-38 is certainly one of the worlds most beloved aircraft. Not much more than pilots, engines and fuel, packaged superbly efficiently, a hot rod with manners. It will be a sad day (if ever) when it is replaced, for certainly its replacement will not be as capable a trainer, or as an aircraft.

If we had a poll, I would vote for it to be the best trainer in aviation history.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 16, 2008)

Well make the best trainer poll then!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Well make the best trainer poll then!!!



We have...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 17, 2008)

All the way from 2006... comes a gem!


----------



## steve51 (Jan 19, 2011)

I just acquired the new book, 'MiG 15', by Gordon and Komissarov. The book is 576 pages of text and photographs and gives an exhaustive narrative of the design, production and operational history of the fighter. All foreign users are covered as well.
Within the chapter on the Soviet operations during the Korean War, a statistic is given that I haven't seen before. Citing " Russian sources ", the figure is given of 335 Soviet MiGs lost to all causes, with 268 to air combat. That's the lowest number I've seen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2011)

steve51 said:


> I just acquired the new book, 'MiG 15', by Gordon and Komissarov. The book is 576 pages of text and photographs and gives an exhaustive narrative of the design, production and operational history of the fighter. All foreign users are covered as well.
> Within the chapter on the Soviet operations during the Korean War, a statistic is given that I haven't seen before. Citing " Russian sources ", the figure is given of 335 Soviet MiGs lost to all causes, with 268 to air combat. That's the lowest number I've seen.



That may not be too far off the mark, but then again the Soviets also claimed something like 183 F-80s over Korea - I think 185 were deployed through out the conflict! (I'm quoting this from memory). Based on information from various sources including our own JoeB, the actual score against Soviet flown MiG 15s over Korea could be as low as under 2 to 1 and as high as 3 to 1 depending who's numbers you want to believe.

OK Joe, Chime in any time!


----------



## steve51 (Jan 19, 2011)

FLYBOYJ,

The authors do state that the Soviet pilots greatly overclaimed, but they also repeat the claim that the Americans intentionally understated their losses. Not that I'm an expert, but I do not beleive there's any evidence for that.
Other historical aerial combats that are given in the book, such as Mig 15 cold war interceptions and Egyptian Mig 15 operations, do conform to generally accepted facts. All in all it's an excellent book.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2011)

steve51 said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> The authors do state that *the Soviet pilots greatly overclaimed, but they also repeat the claim that the Americans intentionally understated their losses. Not that I'm an expert, but I do not beleive there's any evidence for that.*Other historical aerial combats that are given in the book, such as Mig 15 cold war interceptions and Egyptian Mig 15 operations, do conform to generally accepted facts. All in all it's an excellent book.



I do know that there were many F-86 losses that were attributed to "other than combat" or "weather" related that coincide with the time and place as Soviet claims. I think in the end it all "comes out in the wash." as being somewhat close to "accepted facts." New evidence does show however that over all the F-86/ MiG-15 claim/ kill rate was a lot lower than advertised, but still substantial in favor of the Sabre.


----------



## steve51 (Jan 20, 2011)

FLYBOYJ,

I haven't done original research, but have read everything I can find on the subject. It just isn't reasonable to claim that much over 100 F-86s were lost to Migs.
What struck me was that figure of 268 Soviet losses to air combat. It's quite low compared to other figures. The authors also mention that the 231 losses for the Chinese represent all aircraft types and all causes. They don't give a figure for just Migs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2011)

steve51 said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> I haven't done original research, but have read everything I can find on the subject. It just isn't reasonable to claim that much over 100 F-86s were lost to Migs.
> What struck me was that figure of 268 Soviet losses to air combat. It's quite low compared to other figures. The authors also mention that the 231 losses for the Chinese represent all aircraft types and all causes. They don't give a figure for just Migs.



Here's a laughable Russian site about this subject;

Korean Air War

Here's a post from JoeB from another site - great info!

_"MiG vs. Sabre - losses and claims, by JoeB
I have yet to come across anything that refutes the 10:1 (Sabre-to-MiG kill) ratio. 
On protection again it's relative, no protection on the F-86 could stop 23 or 37mm rounds. Also the visibility benefit of the F-86 was partly at the expense of pilot vulnerability since the pilot sat up higher above the fuselage centerline less protected by the engine from behind. It's not true the MiG had no pilot armor. Earlier ones had a 20mm thick headrest impervious to .50 cal, relying on the engine again to protect the pilot's body. Later production MiG-15bis's extended that to a seat plate also. They had armored windshield and front plate also but head-on hits seem really rare for either side, closing at 1200mph.

On kill ratio the whole point is that at some point you have to try to find how many planes you really downed, not just how many you claimed. The 10:1 is based on claims not real MiG losses. And the 78 has some problems see below. For MiG losses:

Russian: The number 345 total MiG losses of which 335 in combat is quoted in many general Russian texts, but only 10 to operational causes seems much too low. Seidov/German's "Krasnye Diavoli na 38i Paraleli" gives 319 Soviet MiG's lost in combat describing individually 295 of them if you count up in the book day by day. Naboka's "Natovskie iastreby v pritsele stalinskikh sokolov: Sovetskie letchiki na zashchite neba Kitaia i Korei (1950-1951)" covers only to July 1951. From limited declassified Soviet records I've seen directly, Naboka seems to be a literal transcription of those records. Seidov/German leaves out a few losses mentioned in Naboka for the overlapping period. Therefore I believe the Soviet losses were probably in the range normally given, give or take some probably left out of say Seidov. There is no positive evidence otherwise.

Soviet account like Seidov/German quote MiG losses for the "Unified Air Force" command of the Chinese and NK's as 231. However on the 50th anniversary of the war a Chinese official publication listed theirs alone as 224, so we again have to estimate NK losses. However the general similarity of the post Soviet Russian and Chinese numbers for the Chinese losses seems to indicate the right ballpark.

The NK defector No Gum-suk estimated his own AF's MiG losses as 100 to all causes. Since his all-cause estimates of Russian and Chinese losses were accurate, the 100 probably is too. So 50 NK combat losses is a good guess IMO. All three countries' accounts (including No's) say there were relatively few NK MiG units and they often didn't actively seek combat so it's not surprising their losses were much less than Russian and Chinese. Also the lowest NK claim ever published said they downed 44 F-86's. The Chinese also claimed about as many F-86's as they lost MiG's (211 from memory). Both seem to be ridiculous exaggerations given US losses and Soviet claims, but the idea was probably to claim about as many they lost.

Therefore a total MiG combat loss number might be 593. (319+224+50=593) Which would be a very respectable % of the ~819 credited (762 by F-86's, ~32 by other fighters incl. USN, USMC, RAAF and RN, and 25 by B-29's, but only 3 MiG's seem to have been downed by B-29's). Note these are official US Korean War credit numbers from early 1960's, a little lower than totals at the time of the war. In WWII actual US victories were a smaller % of claims than that on average, so the MiG losses estimated don't seem too low at all actually. Not counting B-29 claims and MiG losses to them the UN fighter claims would be 74% accurate.

The US F-86 loss of 78 is from the "USAF FY 1953 Statistical Digest". That's what Futrell footnoted the number to in his official history, and almost everyplace else gets it from Futrell. But surveying that number by month against each incident it clearly excludes some F-86 known air combat losses, and OTOH includes some "code M" losses, "loss on a combat mission" not really caused by MiG's (e.g. some fuel and engine failure losses away from combat areas are included, others aren't, it tends to include such losses early on but not later in the war). IMO that's a not very good number though it happens to still be fairly close to the real one. 

Counting plane by plane I get no fewer than 82 F-86's certainly directly downed by MiG's (*not* the same 78 plus another 4) but no more than ~100. Weighing probabilities in cases where an unclear loss cause matches up at least in date with a Soviet or Chinese claim I believe the right number is around 90. Still needs to be clarified further.

Therefore if 74% claim accuracy for the F-86's like the UN average, and real losses 90, then the exchange ratio was ~6.3:1, fairly sensitive to confirming a few more F-86 losses, not very sensitive to finding a few more MiG losses. And also lower than that v. the Russians, higher v. the Chinese and NK's.

To add one thing, 6:1 is an exceptional *real fighter to fighter* kill ratio for an extensive air campaign against a very serious opponent. It can't be compared directly to e.g. 19:1 for the Hellcat in WWII, or 6:1 for the F4F because those are *claimed* ratio's not real ones, and involved many non fighter targets, esp. F4F's case. The F4F v. Zero ratio in 1942 based on Japanese losses from their records in was right around 1:1. The performance of the F-86 units in Korea was remarkable."_

Korean War Jet Fighters, MiG-15 vs. Sabre F-86: Which Was Better?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2011)

For some reason that Russian site confuses me. I am not sure which figures he is disputing...


----------



## steve51 (Jan 20, 2011)

FLYBOYJ,

Thanks for those links. That post by JoeB is excellent. Well thought out and logical.
Off topic, it seems that the Soviets were consistent with around a 6 to 1 overclaim. Looking at their claims in China, Spain and Finland prior to WW2, one sees a comparable ratio. It makes one wonder about the ratio during WW2.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 8, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I do know that there were many F-86 losses that were attributed to "other than combat" or "weather" related that coincide with the time and place as Soviet claims.



There should be a data base on non-combat operational loses per flight hour for the F-86. Multiply that by some factor based on hazards of non-combat experienced combat ops, which would be more hazardous than peace time ops, and maybe one could calculate what makes since. Or, maybe not.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 17, 2011)

I wanted to comment on the perception of the effectiveness of the Mig armament compared to the F-86. In another thread, I did an analysis of the probabilities of effectiveness of the F-86, with six browning M3 50 cals compared to the F9F with four M2 20mm cannons. This indicated that the F-86 and F9F were roughly comparable in effectiveness at about 5% probability of a hit per round. Above that point, like 10% probability of a hit, the F-86 was increasing in effectiveness. This was based on the Navy’s assertion that the 20 mm round was comparable to three 50 cal rounds.

I thought I would do a similar comparison with the F-86 and Mig-15. The Mig-15 has two 23mm NR-23 cannon firing a total of 27 rounds/sec* and one 37mm N-37 cannon firing 7 rounds/sec. To make this simple, I will assume these will have a one hit one kill capability and will treat both cannon types as the same. So, total round/sec of the Mig-15 is 34. At this rate, and with a probability 5% hit per round, the probability of one or more hits with a one second burst is 83%.

The F-86 has six Browning M3 machine gun capable of a total of 125 rounds/sec*. At this rate, and 5% probability of a hit per round, the F-86 will have 88% probability of four or more hits, or a bit better at getting four hits than the Mig has of having one hit.

At a 10% probability of a hit per round, the Mig will have 97% probability of one or more hits. The F-86 will have seven or more hits with a probability of 97%.

Now I don’t really know the comparison of 23 mm or 37 mm to the 50 cal and of course, the probability of one hit one kill is not one, nor do we know how the effective distribution of over the aircraft. However, if one 20mm is equal to three 50s, it appears reasonable to me that one 23mm would be equal to four 50s. The 37mm is a ringer. It is noticeable that, as the probability of hits per round increases, the high rate of fire F-86 becomes more effective.

Additional notes would be that it is my understanding that the 50 cal has better ballistic characteristic than the 23 mm or 37mm (it certainly has better initial velocity) which could possibly affect the critical probability of strike per round. Also, the F-86 with its radar ranging gun sight would also improve the probability of strike per round. Both of these statistically improve the advantages of the higher rate of fire weapons.

In general, in my opinion, the armament of the F-86 was equal to or better than the Mig-15. It is also interesting to note that the AF did not change to the 20mm until the much faster firing M39 (twice a fast as the M2 cannon) became available late in Korean War.

*I used the higher rate of fire of 1250 rounds/min vs.1200 r/m, and also the higher rate of fire for the 23mm of 800 r/m (AF test was at 650 according to Wiki)


----------



## JoeB (Aug 20, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Now I don’t really know the comparison of 23 mm or 37 mm to the 50 cal and of course, the probability of one hit one kill is not one, nor do we know how the effective distribution of over the aircraft. However, if one 20mm is equal to three 50s, it appears reasonable to me that one 23mm would be equal to four 50s.


Interesting analysis. On kill probability of 23/37mm, I've studied the USAF files of damage and loss in Korea. The number of F-86's hit by at least one 23mm shell but returned and repaired, is clearly geater than the number lost to MiG cannon fire*. OTOH only a few F-86's known to have been struck by 37mm shells returned, and those were usually write offs. It's not possible to tell which lost F-86's were hit with 23 v 37. Some anecdotal accounts from Korea from US side imply that MiG cannon had a very high probability of kill given any hit, and this is also what the Soviets believed, but the actual numbers don't bear it out. The 23mm did not have a high single hit kill probability v the F-86, though the 37mm apparently did.

*a complete statistical analysis is not possible because a few months' files are missing; also there's more detail given for cases of 'major damage' than 'minor damage'. But cases of 'major damage' in air combat alone outnumber the a/c lost in air combat. And the great majority of 'major damage' F-86's were repaired. Just a handful, and among those a couple of cases of surviving 37mm hits, were not repaired, and most of those were counted as air combat losses at the time. 

Joe


----------



## airacobra47 (Aug 20, 2011)

I study aviation and aerodynamics, and i like the Sabre. I also think it would win because the tail of the MIG 15 would cause a lot of drag, and the F-86's tail will cause less drag. The Sabre's elevators didn't work as much as the MIG 15, which is why the MIG 15 has a better rate of climb, but the MIG's engine is to strong, so it would would always lose wings and stuff and go into a stall with a lot of yaw, putting the aircraft into a spin. Also, the Sabre was used for a longer amount of time in more countries, and the last country to use it, Bolivia, didn't retire it until 1994 or 96. (meaning it was a safe, reliable aircraft)


----------



## Altea (Aug 24, 2011)

Hello



davparlr said:


> I thought I would do a similar comparison with the F-86 and Mig-15. The Mig-15 has two 23mm NR-23 cannon firing a total of *27 rounds/sec** and one 37mm N*-37 cannon firing 7 rounds/sec*. To make this simple....
> 
> The F-86 has six Browning M3 machine gun capable of a *total of 125 rounds/sec*. *...


OK





> the F-86 will have 88% probability of four or more hits, or a bit better at getting four hits than the Mig has of having one hit.


88,8236% i don't know, but *much* more, sure....




> Additional notes would be that it is my understanding that the 50 cal has better ballistic characteristic than the 23 mm or 37mm (it certainly has better initial velocity) which could possibly affect the critical probability of strike per round.


False, except maybe in very short range : in general case heavy bullets mantain their speed (cinetic energy) much better than fast lighter ones...



> Also, the F-86 with its radar ranging gun sight would also improve the probability of strike per round. Both of these statistically improve the advantages of the higher rate of fire weapons.


OK



> In general, *in my opinion*, the armament of the F-86 was equal to or better than the Mig-15.


Fighter to fighter in Corea Hit and Run conditions might be, in general conditions, no...
MiG-15 was *a frontal fighter*, intended to fulfill Yak-9 and La-7 missions, many of them for ground attack (>30% from WWII statistics). The Sabre weapons would be ineffective even against light armored vehicules as BTR, BMP....
The admitted efficiency of an armement is not a matter of "opinions" but of the "quality factor" formula that includes alltogether rate of fire, cinetic energy (speed²), bullet weights. In that form the MiG-15 is beating the Sabre hugely...

Moreover. I'm not sure that submitted to 3 or 6 G, browning continue to deliver 120 rps, and not simply jamming as in Mustang wings...
If some MiG's went back with some 150 12.7mm hits (or just 150 holes from ...), i'm far to be sure that a Sabre could survive to 40 23mm and 10 37mm hits!

On the other hand, some polish Lim pilots said that ballistics from the 37 and 23 mm were different. Except at very close range, you can't use both calibers simultaneously on the same target, cause bullets of the first caliber are trepassing upwards, the others downwards....

Don't know if it's the trough or just polemic at usual combat ranges, but it does not seems aberrant...

Regards


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2011)

Bomb racks and rocket rails weren't even fitted to the Mig !5 until the Mig 15 bis, (2nd version) it wasn't designed for frontal aviation, it was designed as a bomber interceptor.


----------



## renrich (Aug 24, 2011)

Altea, your statement that heavier projectiles maintain their velocity better than lighter projectiles is not necessarily true. A projectile that has a better ballistic coefficient maintains it's velocity better. The ballistic coefficient is heavily influenced by the shape of the bullet. A short, fat but heavy bullet will generally not have as good a BC as a long slim lighter bullet. A bullet with a blunt or flat nose will generally not have as good a BC as one with a pointed nose. An example is a 7 MM 154 grain spire point bullet that has a BC of .433. A 375 caliber( around 9 MM) 300 grain round nosed bullet has a BC of .263.

The 50 BMG bullet had a very high BC and probably higher than the 23MM or 37 MM projectile. The 50 BMG probably started off with a higher muzzle velocity and maintained that velocity much better than the Soviet projectiles. At very high altitudes because of less drag, the 50 BMG bullet would be a very long range weapon. I have read of lethal hits at 700 yards on Migs.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 24, 2011)

Altea said:


> Hello
> False, except maybe in very short range : in general case heavy bullets mantain their speed (cinetic energy) much better than vfast lighter ones...


There seems to be somewhat of a controersy associated to this. Aerodynamics also has a play. I don’t know.



> Fighter to fighter in Corea Hit and Run conditions might be, in general conditions, no...
> MiG-15 was *a frontal fighter*, intended to fulfill Yak-9 and La-7 missions, many of them for ground attack (>30% from WWII statistics). The Sabre weapons would be ineffective even against light armored vehicules as BTR, BMP....


The Sabre was an air superiority fighter and not optimize for ground attack. I am not sure BTRs or BMPs existed in 1950. In WW2, the 50 cal proved effective against soft and lightly armored targets.



> The admitted efficiency of an armement is not a matter of "opinions" but of the "quality factor" formula that includes alltogether rate of fire, cinetic energy (speed²), bullet weights. In that form the MiG-15 is beating the Sabre hugely...


Show me your data for this statement. I used the Navy position on the effectiveness of the 20mm compared to the 50 cal (1944 joint fighter conference) with some guesstimation for the effectively of the 23 mm, and probability analysis.

A quick look at kinetic energy, and a bit of calculations (yikes an Avionics puke trying to do ballistics! This is certainly a formula for disaster).
Anyway, using the following data for projectile weight and initial velocity, I get the following round kinetic energy 

.50 Cal 622 gr. 2910 ft/sec 11,693 ft/lbs
23 mm 3086 gr. 2264 ft/sec 35,116 ft/lbs
37mm 11,342 gr. 2260 ft/sec 128,605 ft/lbs

Aircraft broadside kinetic energy (all weapons firing at once)
F-86 (six 50 cals) 70,185 ft/lbs
Mig-15 (two 23mm, one 37mm) 198,837 ft/lbs 

It is apparent that the Mig certainly has more “broadside” power than the F-86. An interesting note here is that the broadside power of the 23mm is about the same as the 50s

However, once we figure in time, kinetic energy expended takes an interesting turn. For a one second burst, this is the comparison (125 rounds/sec .50 cals, 26 r/s 23mm, 7 r/s 37mm).
F-86 8,769,750 ft/lb/sec
Mig-15 2,726,267 ft/lb/sec

The F-86 is producing about four times the weapons energy in one second than the Mig-15 is. This is, by the way, enough energy to slow the F-86 down quite a lot.

I am sure any errors will be pointed out.

Other factors not included in this simple comparison is the effectiveness of the explosive power of the cannons (unfortunately an unknown) and the probability of hit analysis I have already worked.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that weapon effectiveness is a highly complex issue which cannot be assessed by a simple look at rate of fire or kinetic energy, but there must be an understanding of the two main variables, probability of hit and probability of damage given a hit, with the latter the most complex of the two.







> Moreover. I'm not sure that submitted to 3 or 6 G, browning continue to deliver 120 rps, and not simply jamming as in Mustang wings...


I have read where the 50cal had problems with jamming on the tilted installations of the P-51B, but I don’t think it was an unusual problem with the D and other US aircraft. I have not seen any indications of jamming problems on the F-86. G forces affect the Mig as much as the F-86, so, if g forces could affect the .50s, it could affect the Mig guns. If you have any supporting information to your comment, please provide it.



> If some MiG's went back with some 150 12.7mm hits (or just 150 holes from ...), i'm far to be sure that a Sabre could survive to 40 23mm and 10 37mm hits!


150 50 cal hits is a devastating attack. The first picture I attached is a heavy steel car hit by about 40 30-06 rounds. Multiply that by 3 and make the hits 50cal and you would probably see that car almost totally destroyed. 

Comments about returning aircraft with damage contribute very little to the effectiveness enemy fire or aircraft survivability because only one side is known. The poorly drawn graph is a hypothetical (i.e., hallucination) meant to demonstrate the one sidedness of your report of the hits on a returned flight. Along the bottom is a scale, starting from the right, of projectile hits on an aircraft. The vertical scale represents the probability of a kill given hits. Every thing above line came back, below the line crashed. Now pilot and ground crew representing point A, which came back with 20+ holes celebrate and claim how strong their aircraft is and how weak opposing weapons are. This is solid data to proof superiority and is written about often. However aircraft B has a different perspective. This aircraft has the unfortunate situation of being downed by only one projectile. But his ground crew cannot count the one hit nor the pilot report only one hit. They don’t complain about the weakness of the aircraft or effectiveness of enemy weapons. It does not make the history records other than “downed by enemy fire”. In fact almost all of the aircraft below the line have little impact to history of effective weapons. Just about all reports on returned aircraft are one-sided.
Everybody has an opinion, and mine is that the F-86 with it six fast firing 50s was an effective and maybe superior match to the Mig-15 and its powerful cannon.


Now this probably confuses everybody, even me!


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2011)

That's Bonnie Clyde's car isn't it ?


----------



## davparlr (Aug 24, 2011)

yep!


----------



## renrich (Aug 25, 2011)

Dav, thanks for the photos of B and Cs car. I think it shows quite well the destructive capacity of shoulder fired weapons. I believe there were no 50 BMGs in that attack but were 30 cals (BARs) 45 cals(Thompson guns) pistols and shotguns. The steel in cars of that vintage was much much heavier than material used in airplanes then and now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2011)

Interesting stuff folks - a few comments...

I have limited knowlege about arament and ballistics but I have read that the rounds coming out of the MiG-15 were not accurate at long distances and seemed to "arc." at least according to No Kum-Sok. The MiG-15 was well built so it was able to take punishment, but its funny, you stand inside the engine bay with the tail removed and it looks like you're inside an F-80/ T-33 engine bay! At close range just a few hits from a MiG-15s cannons will bring down an F-86


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2011)

renrich said:


> Dav, thanks for the photos of B and Cs car. I think it shows quite well the destructive capacity of shoulder fired weapons. I believe there were no 50 BMGs in that attack but were 30 cals (BARs) 45 cals(Thompson guns) pistols and shotguns. The steel in cars of that vintage was much much heavier than material used in airplanes then and now.


 
I was hoping to find a pix where someone had put 50+ rounds of .50 cal in a truck or something to give a better picture of its power but I surprised that I could not find one. You are right about the vintage cars, they put real metal into those.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Interesting stuff folks - a few comments...
> 
> At close range just a few hits from a MiG-15s cannons will bring down an F-86



That is true but in the time it takes a Mig to shoot a few rounds, the F-86 had fired a bunch. At close range with its high probability of strikes (80%?), a one second burp (which the Mig-15 would also require) from an F-86 (100 rounds striking) has a big chance of of ripping apart a Mig-15.


----------



## Altea (Aug 25, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> Bomb racks and rocket rails weren't even fitted to the Mig !5 until the Mig 15 bis, (2nd version) it wasn't designed for frontal aviation, it was designed as a bomber interceptor.


 
No, it' wasnt. This is an old legend peddled from ignorant western so called "experts"*. Just look at soviet official specifications for the plane, they are no more secret and were published many times before in specialised litterature (cf Gordon and Komissarov). If you don't have any recent book about the plane, look even in wiki (russian) and use translator.

ÐœÐ¸Ð“-15 â€” Ð’Ð¸ÐºÐ¸Ð¿ÐµÐ´Ð¸Ñ

Just four your information, the MiG-15 was intended from the mainstream (technical request) to carry 2 * 50 or 100kg bombs. So threre were fasteners underwings to accept bomb lauchers. Now was it fitted or not, is another problem...

And for more free information, rockets were not main soviet weapons since mid-1943 for ground attacks, but canons for light tanks and AFV's, and PTAB's for medium and heavy tanks...

Regards

* But general cliche/prejudice it was a long time ago considered taht the MiG-15 was created as a B-29 interceptor. Not from everyone of course, Bill Gunston for instance estimated with reason that MiG-9 was already perfectly fulfilling the job.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 25, 2011)

Ignorant I may be, but I see nothing in the link you posted that disagreed with what I posted . It states the Mig 15 was designed to intercept the B29, ( was even a single B29 ever shot down by a Mig 9 ?) It also states the hardpoints weren't adopted to carry rockets or bombs until the Mig15 bis in 1950. The origional hardpoints were for drop tanks.

And only being able to carry 2 250 kg bombs would make it a very weak at ground support, even in the era.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2011)

davparlr said:


> That is true but in the time it takes a Mig to shoot a few rounds, the F-86 had fired a bunch. At close range with its high probability of strikes (80%?), a one second burp (which the Mig-15 would also require) from an F-86 (100 rounds striking) has a big chance of of ripping apart a Mig-15.


All very true but it would depend where and when the rounds would strike. Compare the -86 to a shot gun with smaller shot and the MiG to a magnum. Many MiGs withstood the peppering of the .50 rounds just to fly away with fuel and hydraulic lines shot away. I think that would explain the "smoking" of the MiG-15 as reported by UN pilots.



Altea said:


> No, it' wasnt. This is an old legend peddled from ignorant western so called "experts"*. Just look at soviet official specifications for the plane, they are no more secret and were published many times before in specialised litterature (cf Gordon and Komissarov). If you don't have any recent book about the plane, look even in wiki (russian) and use translator.
> 
> ÐœÐ¸Ð“-15 â€” Ð’Ð¸ÐºÐ¸Ð¿ÐµÐ´Ð¸Ñ
> 
> ...



Agree on all points not sure about the MiG-9 though.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All very true but it would depend where and when the rounds would strike. Compare the -86 to a shot gun with smaller shot and the MiG to a magnum. Many MiGs withstood the peppering of the .50 rounds just to fly away with fuel and hydraulic lines shot away. I think that would explain the "smoking" of the MiG-15 as reported by UN pilots.


 
At close range (a variable) dispersion would be small and 100 rounds of close grouped 50 cals would cut off a wing, destroy an engine, tear off a tail, or destroy the cockpit. I said there was a great probability of destroying the Mig not 100%. This would not be a peppering.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2011)

airacobra47 said:


> I study aviation and aerodynamics, and i like the Sabre. I also think it would win because the tail of the MIG 15 would cause a lot of drag, and the F-86's tail will cause less drag. The Sabre's elevators didn't work as much as the MIG 15, which is why the MIG 15 has a better rate of climb, but the MIG's engine is to strong, so it would would always lose wings and stuff and go into a stall with a lot of yaw, putting the aircraft into a spin. Also, the Sabre was used for a longer amount of time in more countries, and the last country to use it, Bolivia, didn't retire it until 1994 or 96. (meaning it was a safe, reliable aircraft)


I think the F-86 is clearly a superior aerodynamic design and was capable of transonic and supersonic (which it did in power dives) flight which the MIG was incapable of doing. With advent of the E and F with its hydraulic flight controls, flying horizontal stabilizer (stabilator), and the already used radar ranging gunsight and g-suit, the F-86 was the first, or certainly one of the first, truly modern jet fighters. 

Primary use of the elevator/stabilator in climb, other than basic stability, is to set the climb angle of attack. The climb performance of the MIG is probably mostly due to its significantly better power to weight ratio, almost 40%, and possibly the wing profile. Wing loading is similar.

I think the MIG-15 was around for quite a while also.


----------



## Altea (Aug 26, 2011)

Hello


renrich said:


> Altea, your statement that heavier projectiles maintain their velocity better than lighter projectiles .


You mean that in my sentence *in general case* heavy bullets mantain their speed (cinetic energy) much better than fast lighter ones *is not necessarily true..*?
There are such polite men here, that moderators will be soon out of job?!

The reality of things make the world of physics much more complicated than the scholar "cinematic of point" formulas. 

The FAMAS 5.56 bullet had the better BC shape than french 155mm shell. But it best range does not exceed 3,2 km with 925 m/s initial speed. 
The canon reaches 17.5 km with less than 650 m/s initial speed. 




> A projectile that has a better ballistic coefficient maintains it's velocity better. The ballistic coefficient is heavily influenced by the shape of the bullet. A short, fat but heavy bullet will generally not have as good a BC as a long slim lighter bullet.The 50 BMG bullet had a very high BC and probably higher than the 23MM or 37 MM projectile.


This is true, but i don't think that your "heavily influence" will play in more than 10% between soviet and american shells/bullets BC. They are not just "sparrows" and "balls" after all.



> The 50 BMG probably started off with a higher muzzle velocity and maintained that velocity much better than the Soviet projectiles.


Considering Bernouilli formulas (we're in an aviation forum after all):
Drag = KS(rhô)mV²
We can see with ease that a 50% (1.5) higher speed (2900ft/s to 2200) will lead to 2.25 higher drag on Browning shell. That means a much bigger speed dectrease rate (gradient). And this, during the whole differential equation of trajectory. 
Moreover the law of conservation of the quantity of movement (dynamic of corps) will play in favor of the shell with the higher value.



> At very high altitudes because of less drag, the 50 BMG bullet would be a very long range weapon.


It will *equally* play for the soviet canons too.



> I have read of lethal hits at 700 yards on Migs.


 What would be the curvature at that distance? (distance in m) And discrepancy of the weapon. (aera in m²)
Lethal you say?
The MiG-15 bis SN° 2915328 of major Karataev from the 532th IAP recieved 119 incoming bullets on sept 52 the 16th (more than 250 holes), 24 of them in the engine. Within 16 days, the plane was repeared and airworthy!

The max records noticed up to 204 12.7 mm shells hits, with plane coming back on the airfield...

Regards


----------



## Altea (Aug 26, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> Ignorant I may be,


When did i say *that*?



> but I see nothing in the link you posted that disagreed with what I posted . It states the Mig 15 was designed to intercept the B29


, 
Can you show us, *where* this link speaks about *B-29*?



> It also states the hardpoints weren't adopted to carry rockets or bombs until the Mig15 bis in 1950. The origional hardpoints were for drop tanks.


And so for this points, *where* is the line, paragraph?


----------



## davparlr (Aug 26, 2011)

Altea said:


> Hello
> 
> What would be the curvature at that distance? (distance in m) And discrepancy of the weapon. (aera in m²)
> Lethal you say?
> ...


 
If true, obviously struck at the limit of lethality of the rounds, 700 yards, 1000, more? Where is the testimony of the MIGs that fell to only a handful of hits? Oh yeah, they are smoking holes in the ground. Comments like this mean, statistically, nothing.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 26, 2011)

Altea said:


> When did i say *that*?
> 
> ,
> Can you show us, *where* this link speaks about *B-29*?
> ...


Under design and developement paragraph 7

Let's face it, if the Mig 15 was origionally designed as a aircraft for frontal aviation, instead of as a interceptor, it fell sadly short of the standards of other aircraft of the same era. It could only carry a total bomb load of 1100 lbs ( 500 kg) the F84 could carry 4400 lbs, the A1E could carry 12.000 lbs, even the lowly T28 could carry 2000 lbs. 
Then with the bombs taking the place of where the drop tanks normally would be it's combat radius would be short.


----------



## Altea (Aug 26, 2011)

No i still can't see you're talking about...
I doubt we're quoting *the same *site. Can you give a link the site you use?


tyrodtom said:


> Under design and developement paragraph 7



In russian wiki 

-*paragraph 7* is Лицензионное производство : Production under licence
-*paragraph 9* Боевое применение: Combat use, or Operational history


The specifications are in paragraph (or part) 2: *Frontal fighter* *is clearly written over the specifications notebook, but not mentionned in wiki. Since this notion is quite fuzzy, VVS precised the missions. 

_ Назначением самолёта, согласно документу с требованиями, утвержденному А. К. Вершининым являлось:

-Ведение активного воздушного боя с истребителями и бомбардировщиками противника;
-Отражение налётов авиации противника;
-Действия по наземным целям;
-Выполнение задач разведки и контроля боевых действий._

I will tranlate later (you can do it by yourself in the meantime), but no mention about any B-29 or heavy bomber as you can see

* Sometimes we can find "general superiority fighter" in soviet docs. It means about the same things in "soviet military" late 40ies language.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 26, 2011)

I used the english translator of the site you provided. But when I compare the english translation site with the russion site I can see they have a completely diiferent layout. 
But in that translation, it mentions both that the Mig 15 was designed to intercept the B29, and other bombers , left unsaid was the B50 and B36, but taken for granted. Also mentioned is that the hardpoints for drop tanks weren't modified for ordance until the second version Mig 15 bis, which went operational in early 1950. Three years after the first Mig 15 prototype flew, and 2 years after the first production models flew.

I realize frontal aviation doesn't mean just ground support, but was high altitude bomber interception also one of it's missions ?


----------



## renrich (Aug 26, 2011)

Altea, from ballistic tables online from the US Army, the 20 mm projectile has a BC of around .413 and a weight of around 2000 grains.
The 50 BMG has a BC ranging from .62 to 1.0 and the weight of around 700 grains.
According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" WW2 50 BMGs had a MV of around 2800 FPS and the 20MM had a MV of around 2900 FPS. 
Obviously the ballistic properties of the ammo in the Mig 15s and F86s are going to vary a little from the figures in Dean and the Army figures in 1946 but for practical purposes they will be roughly the same.
Following is an example from a Hornady Handbook of reloading. I used to do a lot of it:
45 caliber, 500 grain bullet, BC is .297, Muzzle velocity of 2600 FPS-at 300 yards the velocity is down to 1780 FPS
7 MM , 175 grain bullet, BC is .447, muzzle velocity is 2600 FPS-at 300 yards the velocity is down to 2030 FPS
As you can see, a much heavier bullet, with a worse BC launched at the same MV as the smaller lighter bullet with a better BC loses it's velocity faster and therefore will have a less flat trajectory.
Those are pretty similar comparisons to the Russian cannon shells and the 50 BMGs.


----------



## Altea (Aug 28, 2011)

Hello, 
First i answered too fast, and mismatched the BC with Cd. 
I like planes , not guns...

First i will correct my sentences

_The FAMAS 5.56 bullet had the better *Cd *(not BC) shape than french 155mm shell. But it best range does not exceed 3,2 km with 925 m/s initial speed. 
The canon reaches 17.5 km with less than 650 m/s initial speed. _

then

_This is true, but i don't think that your "heavily influence" will play in more than 10% between soviet and american shells/bullets *Cd *not BC. They are not just "sparrows" and "balls" after all.
_

The Bernouill formula Drag = KS(rhô)mV² stays in force with K ~ Cd
Cd is not full constant with Reynolds number variation. 





renrich said:


> Altea, from ballistic tables online from the US Army, the 20 mm projectile has a BC of around .413 and a weight of around 2000 grains.
> The 50 BMG has a BC ranging from .62 to 1.0 and the weight of around 700 grains.
> According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" WW2 50 BMGs had a MV of around 2800 FPS and the 20MM had a MV of around 2900 FPS. Obviously the ballistic properties of the ammo in the Mig 15s and F86s are going to vary a little from the figures in Dean and the Army figures in 1946 but for practical purposes they will be roughly the same.



I don't know the kind of desease was suffering the american 20 mm to have such a low BC, but obviously it's not transmissible to soviet, french or german ones. 
I mean 20 mm shells had better working heights than standard NATO 12,7 mm bullet.

About BC, if we take formulas

BC = M/Cd A ....means that for *the same* bullet shape, if you increase the caliber by 2, you will increase the weight M by 8, and the A section aera only by 4. It means passing to the 25.4 from 12.7 caliber all things being equal, will increase your BC by 2 factor.

I will add from myself there will be also a little Cd decrease, due to higher Reynolds number.

I insist that Cd wouldn't change a lot, between soviet 23 x 115, and 12.7 x 90 mm amnution (from about 1 to 5 or 1 to 7 d/l relationship, differences are of logarithmic kind)

So keeping about the same Cd as i previously said

We will obtain from the 12.7 to the 23 mm the the evolution:

BC = 40.3 to 200 grams (4.96) / Cd x 12.7 to 23 (1.81)

In fact a *2.74 BC increase* for the soviet shell.


From 12.7 to 37 mm we will have a 

BC = 40.3 (622 grains) to 760 (18.85) / Cd x 12.7 to 37 (2.91)

So à *6.47* BC increase!

This is no the 100% truth, just a general tendency...
And don't forget air resistance formulas, with 2900/2200 = 1.32 more speed; the american bullet will have 1.73 more air resistance so a 1.73 higher initial speed decrease rate...




> Those are pretty similar comparisons to the Russian cannon shells and the 50 BMGs.



I don't think so, we need more precise numbers. 
Ask for yourself why US 90 mm canon could fire on 10 km ceiling, and the 0.5 browning less than ~ 2 km (In practical less than 1 - 1.5 km in vertical for accuracy problems in AA variant in french army).


----------



## renrich (Aug 28, 2011)

Nothing wrong with the US 20 mms. Perhaps you would care to post the BCs of the German. Russian, etc, comparable 20 mm rounds. I have some pictures of German AC cannon rounds in a book and they certainly do not look anymore drag resistant than US rounds. I will not contest your math because I am no math expert. All I know about ballistics is from handloading for 30 years or so. How about coming up with precise numbers to prove your point? If you can, from a reliable source, show me that the Russian 23 MM rounds in the Mig 15 or the 37 MM rounds have a better BC than the 50 BMGs in the F86, I will gladly say, Calf Rope! In the meantime I will go with the Hornaday Handbook.

Did a little reading online to refresh my memory about external ballistics. Google external ballistics and there are some useful articles.
Two factors which heavily influence the BC are sectional density and form factor. Sectional density is the relationship of the diameter versus the length of the projectile. A long slim projectile has better SD than a short fat one. Form factor is the shape of the projectile, ( blunt nose, flat nose, pointed nose, boat tail, etc.) A projectile with a high SD along with a high FF will have a higher BC than vice versa. A high SD also means the projectile will have better penetration of the target. Of course that penetration is also influenced by the FF.

The factors which play a role in the comparison of aircraft gun ammunition are that as the diameter of the projectile increases, in order to have the same SD, the length of the projectile must go up which in turn makes the weight go up. In order to maintain the same velocity, if the weight goes up, then more propellant is needed and the barrel needs to be longer which means the gun gains weight and the recoil is higher. Those factors rapidly become an issue with aircraft guns. The reason a US 20 mm shell does not have the BC of a 50 BMG bullet is that the SD of the 20MM is not as high and the FF is slightly lower, probably because of the shape of the nose. The 20 mm could be made to have as high a SD but the projectile would then weigh too much to maintain it's velocity.

The simple answer to why a 90 mm shell has greater range than a 50 BMG is that it has a better BC, a result mainly of a higher SD. Same reason a 16 inch naval shell has more range than a 90 mm AA shell.

An example of how the above factors can influence AC guns is the A6M. It had two 20 MMs in the wings. I believe they were copies of the Oerlikon. To save weight, they had short barrels and the gun receivers were as light as possible. The MVs were down around 2000 FPS, to reduce recoil and weight and the trajectory of the shells was rainbow like. Consequently the 50 BMGs in the US AC outranged effectively the 20 MMs of the Zekes substantially.


----------

