# Mig 17 in Korean War?



## Bucksnort101 (Jul 6, 2012)

Latest book I am reading "Mig Alley to Mu Ghia Pass: Memoirs of a Korean War Ace" by Cecil G. Foster makes reference to him shooting down a Mig 17 in late 1952? He states that he saw an aircraft that he had not seen before with multiple "rails' on each wing and that he had not seen this on a Mig-15 before. Encounters starts by seeing another Mig 15 chasing and shooting at this aircraft, then breaking off. Then Mr. Foster jumped in and finished the job.
I always thought the Mig 17 was made operational several years after the Korean conflict ended? Am I correct, or where they in use during the Korean war?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2012)

MiG-17s were not used during the Korean War, period. An error or mistake in identity. The MiG-17 went into prodution in 1952. The Chinese were the first ones to use it in combat.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jul 6, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> MiG-17s were not used during the Korean War, period. An error or mistake in identity. The MiG-17 went into prodution in 1952. The Chinese were the first ones to use it in combat.



That's what I figured, but Mr. Foster seems quite convinced that it was something different. He mentions "rails" on the wings as somthing different, but both the Mig 15 and 17 have "wing fences" on thier wings so the rail term is confusing to me.
Strange part is the other Mig 15 giving chase and firing upon said aircraft. In Mr. Foster's account he said the aircraft just flew in a straight line and did not attempt any evasive manuevers when the Mig was firing upon him. The attacker only broke away when he spotted the F-86 coming his direction.
One would assume the Mig 15 pilot made a mistake in identity as well since the F-86 and Mig 15 so closely resemble each other.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 8, 2012)

I have read though that US pilots did report what appeared to be a MiG-15, but with obviously superior performance. The book is upstairs and I could quote the title if folks are interested. Pilots reported demonstrably better climb, acceleration and speed. However the variant was never noted.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 8, 2012)

That's actually pretty interesting.


----------



## muscogeemike (Jul 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> MiG-17s were not used during the Korean War, period. An error or mistake in identity. The MiG-17 went into prodution in 1952. The Chinese were the first ones to use it in combat.



I don’t know and I’m not disputing you but, since, as you said, the MiG-17 was in production prior to the end of the Korean war and we now know the Russians did have pilots flying against our forces - isn’t it possible (even probable) that they would have “tested” the MiG-17 in combat at that time?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> I don’t know and I’m not disputing you but, since, as you said, the MiG-17 was in production prior to the end of the Korean war and we now know the Russians did have pilots flying against our forces - isn’t it possible (even probable) that they would have “tested” the MiG-17 in combat at that time?


No - the Soviets were giving MiG-15 production priority and the -17 didn't go into mass production until late 1952. Even though some operational "lessons learned" were incorporated into the -17, there is no hard evidence to suggest that the Soviets introduced the MiG-17 in Korea. The afterburning MiG-17s entered production in early 1953.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 8, 2012)

The first production batch of MiG 17 left the factory in August 1951, and were assigned to combat units, in October 1951, for 'Operational Testing'. Is it possible that this included sending one or two to North Korea, or China? If so, then this could explain the sighting perhaps?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2012)

Airframes said:


> The first production batch of MiG 17 left the factory in August 1951, and were assigned to combat units, in October 1951, for 'Operational Testing'. Is it possible that this included sending one or two to North Korea, or China? If so, then this could explain the sighting perhaps?


I doubt it. If a MiG-17 would have been used over MiG alley, it would have been flown by a Soviet and would not have been alone. The MiG-15 has "multiple rails" on it's wings and I think it was just a matter of recognition. Early production MiG-17s had the same engine as the MiG-15. Although the refined design gave the airframe more speed, there wasn't a great advantage over the F-86. 

Although the Soviets were generous with their deployment of the MiG-15 over Korea, I don't see them deploying the MiG-17 in Korea that late in the game. JoeB, chime in anytime!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 8, 2012)

There certainly were confirmed cases of "honchos" (caucasian) flyers in support of NK. Whether they were "defectors" as was pronounced by NK propaganda or Russian pilots is certainly up for debate. I would suspect mostly the latter with only a rather infintesimal small percentage being WWII allied pilots fighting for the communist cause.

I frankly have no reason to doubt that the Russians likely put up some late technology into MiG-15s for testing. US pilots noted on many occasions that when these "honchos" were encountered they did not exhibit the operational tactics of a typical NK fighter sweep directed by a GFI controller, but usually were single airplane encounters and the skill level/engagement tactics were completely contrary to the norm. In fact on some occasions, our pilots debriefs have resulted in suppression of such encounters.

Kinda reminds me of the end of WWII wherein we had some US/Russian encounters that resulted in kills/injuries and they too were suppressed. Makes you wonder what other types of encounters we don't know about.

c.f. Blind Man's Bluff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2012)

It is now known fact that the Soviets sent pilots to North Korea. Debatable are their combat claims which have been up for discussion for a number of years (again, I wait with baited breath for JoeB to jump in here). Agree Matt, I doubt the Soviets would have let the MiG-17 loose that early in the game especially when they just had their @sses handed to them.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 8, 2012)

Yep...


----------



## JoeB (Jul 19, 2012)

During 1952 US pilots in Korea on a number of occasions reported encounters with a/c that generally resembled the MiG-15 but had wing fences. Intel types eventually concluded that this was the 'Type 15', the Western designation at the time for the Lavochkin 168, a would be competitor to the MiG-15 never produced in large quantity. It had wing fences and a high wing (rather than the MiG-15's mid wing) but also T-tail and nose intake, still generally resembled the MiG from a distance. 

So, in various daily intel reports on Korea operations in 1952 you see reports of such and so Type 15's sighted that day alongside some larger number of MiG-15's sighted. Here's a random example I pulled from my files, from the May 16 1952 Daily Intel Summary, 5th AF: 

'[May] 13[time]1620/I [location] YD 2070...six MiG-15's and two Type-15's attacked Able Flight (four F-84's)...claims one Type 15 damaged; negative friendly damage'. The Soviet 821st Fighter Regiment reported an action at the same time and general area in which they claimed an F-84 destroyed, but I have no documents saying for sure they were or weren't using any a/c other than MiG-15's.
And at least a few claims for type Type 15's destroyed were made at the time IIRC, but it seems that eventually the USAF revised all these credits to being against MiG-15's, as no Type 15 victory credits appear in the official listing (which was published IIRC in the early 1960's). The claim Foster mentions in the book as occuring Dec 6 1952 is probably his victory credited December 7 and he misrecalled the date, all his credits are officially v MiG-15's. I don't have docs for Dec 7 at hand, but as I recall generally the 'Type 15' sightings had died down by then.
AFAIK there is no absolute confirmation in Soviet sources of the actual use of the La-168 in Korea, but an article in a Czech aviation magazine some years back claimed that it was in fact the case, that a small quantity had been used in combat trials in Korea.
OTOH I've never seen a reference in US docs to any belief that MiG-17's had been encountered in Korea, nor does any Soviet/Russian source say so, that I know of.
Joe[/time]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2012)

Thanks Joe!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 19, 2012)

Interview with a "Honcho":

Interview with P.Ovsyannikov

And, La-15 images:


----------



## N4521U (Jul 19, 2012)

Always interesting what comes along in this forum.....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 19, 2012)

I was born in 1942 .... and so by 1952, when the Korean War was winding down, and I was buying "greatest airplanes" bubblegum trading cards and starting to read comic books, and go to movies .... _the Korean war was a very immediate theme_ .... . I had bad dreams about waves of padded Chinese troops with burb guns coming out of the night.

There _was_ a trading card for the Mig 17. IIRC , not a photo, an artist's rendition, and the aircraft had a purplish tinge to it and a high T tail. It was very much like _this _aircraft, and not at all like the actual Mig-17 - as it turned out. 

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> I was born in 1942 .... and so by 1952, when the Korean War was winding down, and I was buying "greatest airplanes" bubblegum trading cards and starting to read comic books, and go to movies .... _the Korean war was a very immediate theme_ .... . I had bad dreams about waves of padded Chinese troops with burb guns coming out of the night.
> 
> There _was_ a trading card for the Mig 17. IIRC , not a photo, an artist's rendition, and the aircraft had a purplish tinge to it and a high T tail. It was very much like _this _aircraft, and not at all like the actual Mig-17 - as it turned out.
> 
> MM



Remember this movie?






After seeing that movie all I wanted to do is zoom around the sky in a sabre and kill MiGs. And can't forget the P-4 and oxygen mask!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2012)

I the middle 50's I got a Aurora model of a Mig 19, when photos finally came out of a actual Mig 19, the model looked nothing like it. I thought it just came from somebody fertile imagination, but now I realize it looked a lot like one of the Wunderwaffe 46 dreams.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 19, 2012)

It was made in 1958, but a good one :


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGSU6H5zv4U_

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 19, 2012)

Wow... never saw that movie. Had me captivated until they showed the F-100 crash (Note that I have been told that the F-100 crash was a cross-rig aileron accident that resulted in aileron rigging subsequently becoming different lengths to avoid same).

Not sure how I missed this movie as a kid having watched the Bridge Over Toko-ri so many times. Loved the "F-84 NKAF" adversaries!


----------



## N4521U (Jul 19, 2012)

How about the silly one with Mickey Rooney as a clown heeliocapeter rescue pilot, in a friggen top hat! 
My Uncle tried to enlist as an Air Force pilot for Korea, heart murmur, then he was drafted in '54 to the Arrrhmy.


----------



## renrich (Jul 21, 2012)

The "one" with Mickey Rooney was "The Bridges of Toko RI." I seem to remember an incident where some Migs jumped a CAP of F9F5s (Panthers) and the F9Fs shot down a couple of Migs. The CV heard the Mig pilots speaking Russian. The interesting thing to me was that I believe the Panthers ( three and then four) engaged seven Migs ( I think) and came out on top.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 21, 2012)

Sorry ... no Migs in B's of T-R ..... just flak:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF-SC-9b7tc_

However, renrich, you aren't imagining things . IIRC, that subject is discussed between Bruebaker and the Admiral after Mickey pulls Bruebaker out of the drink the first time. The Russians are never _shown _but referred to in conversation.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 22, 2012)

Watched 'The Hunters' not long ago on DVD - first time I've seen it since the early 1960s and, given the limitations of aircraft availability, it still looks pretty good today.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2012)

I have no recollection of "The Hunters" from when I was a kid - only learned about it later.

But I sure remember this from 1955:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXpkNmOo0qk_

MM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._McConnell


----------



## renrich (Jul 22, 2012)

MM, I am talking about a real engagement. I think the CV was the Bonnie Dick. There was a division of F9Fs but one had a mechanical and his wingman escorted him to the carrier and then got back into the fight. Some F9s were damaged and two Migs (?) downed.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2012)

Fair enough, renrich. I thought you were speaking specifically about the film. A good film too. Novel by James Mitchner starring Grace (Princess) Kelley, Wm Holden and of course Mickey. I own it on VHS and am always surprised how beautifully shot and directed it is.

MM

@ renrich. Found this:

"... November 18, 1952: Four MiG-15s engaged four F9F Panthers from the aircraft carrier USS Princeton (CV-37) near Vladivostok. One MiG-15 pilot, Captain Dmitriy Belyakov, managed to seriously damage Lieutenant Junior Grade David M. Rowlands' F9F-2, but seconds later he and 1st Lieutenant Vandalov were downed by Elmer Royce Williams and John Davidson Middleton; neither Soviet pilot was found..."

[Wikipedia]


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 22, 2012)

Always liked The Bridges at Toko-Ri for the Skyraider scenes...
Let the Hollywood at it again, this time it'll be, of 150 minutes, 140 lovedovey, 45 seconds of flying and action, then 9 minutes and 15 seconds of credits! 

Edit: Didn't the MiG-17's see combat over, eeerrrrmmm......the Straits of Taiwan, when they clashed with Sabres in.....'58? Any idea how this dispute ended?


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 22, 2012)

Lucky13 said:


> Edit: Didn't the MiG-17's see combat over, eeerrrrmmm......the Straits of Taiwan, when they clashed with Sabres in.....'58? Any idea how this dispute ended?



Boy I would like to hear more about that encounter!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2012)

"... Didn't the MiG-17's see combat over, eeerrrrmmm......the Straits of Taiwan, when they clashed with Sabres in.....'58? Any idea how this dispute ended?"

Second Taiwan Strait Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... The United States Eisenhower Administration responded to ROC's request for aid according to its obligations in the 1954 U.S.-ROC defense treaty by reinforcing US naval units and ordering US naval vessels to help the Kuomintang Nationalist government protect Quemoy's supply lines. Under a secret effort known as Operation Black Magic, *the US Navy modified some ROC air force F-86 Sabres with its newly introduced AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile to provide an edge against more advanced PRC MiG fighters, which had an advantage over the Sabre*. Recent research from the National Archives also indicates that the Air Force was prepared for a nuclear strike against the PRC. Also 12 203mm M115 howitzer long range artillery guns and other 155mm guns were transferred from US Marines to ROC Army and sent to Quemoy/Kinman to help turn the tide of the artillery duel there. The PLA believed that the Taiwan/ROC and US forces had begun to use nuclear weapons on them.[1][2][3]
The Soviet Union dispatched its foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, to Beijing to discuss China's actions.
*On 22 September 1958, the Sidewinder was used for the first time in dogfights with 32 Sabres against over 100 MiGs.* Faced with a stalemate, and having run out of artillery shells on the PRC side, the PRC government announced decreasing bombardment level on October 6.

[Conservapedia.com]:

"... Along with MiG-15s, Chinese MiG-17s took part in several conflicts over the Taiwan Strait. The Frescoes first saw action against the Nationalists, which flew F-84 Thunderjets and F-86 Sabres, during the Quemoy Crisis in 1958. The conflict also marked the first appearance of the Chinese-built J-5. The appearance of MiG-17s in Chinese hands came as a surprise to both the Nationalists and the Americans, and prompted the United States to ship several AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, which had only recently become operational in American units, and the missile saw combat for the first time in Nationalist service.[11]

In spite of several victory claims, there’s no evidence that any Sabers were shot down by the MiGs, although one Saber was lost in a collision (a “Fox four”) with a MiG-17 that also went down. Frescoes did manage to shoot down three Thunderjets.[12] Nationalist Sabre pilots are credited with downing 25 MiG-17s (ironically, no Frescoes fell to Sidewinders).[13] ..."

[Wikipedia - Sidewinder]"

"... The first combat use of the Sidewinder was on September 24, 1958, with the air force of the Republic of China (Taiwan), during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. During that period of time, ROC F-86 Sabres were routinely engaged in air battles with the People's Republic of China over the Taiwan Strait. The PRC MiG-17s had higher altitude ceiling performance and in similar fashion to Korean War encounters between the F-86 and earlier MiG-15, the PRC formations cruised above the ROC Sabres, immune to their .50 cal weaponry and only choosing battle when conditions favored them. In a highly secret effort, United States provided a few dozen Sidewinders to ROC forces and a team to modify their Sabres to carry the Sidewinder. In the first encounter on 24 September 1958, the Sidewinders were used to ambush the MiG-17s as they flew past the Sabres thinking they were invulnerable to attack. The MiGs broke formation and descended to the altitude of the Sabres in swirling dogfights.[8]


*Compromised technology*

The Taiwan Strait battles inadvertently produced a new derivative of Sidewinder. Shortly after that conflict the Soviet Union began the manufacture of the K-13/R-3S missile (NATO reporting name AA-2 'Atoll'), a reverse-engineered copy of the Sidewinder. It was made possible after a Taiwanese AIM-9B hit a Chinese Communist MiG-17 without exploding, the missile lodging itself in the airframe of the MiG after which the pilot was able to bring both plane and missile back to base. According to Ron Westrum in his book "Sidewinder", the Soviets obtained the plans for Sidewinder from a Swedish Air Force Colonel, Stig Wennerström, and rushed their version into service by 1961 copying it so closely that even the part numbers were duplicated, although none of the known Soviet sources mention this. Years later, Soviet engineers would admit that the captured Sidewinder served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet and allied air-to-air capabilities. In 1972, when the Finnish Air Force started using Sidewinder (AIM-9P) in their Saab 35 Draken fighters, they were already using Soviet -made Atoll in their MiG-21s; Finns found the two so similar that they tested Sidewinders in MiGs and Atolls in Drakens ..."


----------



## renrich (Jul 25, 2012)

MM, thanks for the update on the F9F V Mig 15 encounter. There once was a website online about the whole affair. I believe it was kept a secret for sometime because of the Soviet involvement. To me it is most interesting because even though it is a very small sample, it illustrates, possibly, that USN pilots typically well trained in gunnery, in inferior AC, performance wise, can win an encounter against probably experienced and well trained pilots.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 25, 2012)

renrich said:


> MM, thanks for the update on the F9F V Mig 15 encounter. There once was a website online about the whole affair. I believe it was kept a secret for sometime because of the Soviet involvement.


This incident was more sensitive at the time because it *undeniably* involved a Soviet AF unit, flying from Soviet territory. But actually all 8 encounters between USN F9F's and MiG-15's in Korea were with Soviet AF units, the others flying from bases in China. The 3 MiG victories credited to F9F's in November 1950 were Soviet (2 MiG's actually lost, the two victories Nov 18 1950 were a duplicate over claim). Of 4 USMC F9F v MiG encounters two were definitely w/ Soviet units, including the one where an F9F was (probably*) lost to a MiG, one mentioned in PLAAF accounts, and one not mentioned in known opposing accounts, probably v the PLAAF. But the Soviet MiG units flying from China were not incontrovertably Soviet.

The exact knowledge by the US of the nature of MiG opposition during the Korean War is actually still not known. 'Secret' level documents now declassified give the same picture as always rumored, Soviet advisors/instructors possibly flying with Chinese or NK MiG units, etc. But actually Soviet instructors never flew in combat with the Chinese, and it's not 100% clear they ever did with the NK's. The Soviet regiments did dual duty, rotating from training Chinese and NK units deep inside China, and flying combat on their own over Korea. The PLAAF/KPAAF regiments, once trained, also flew on their own with limited coordination with the Soviets under the Soviet 64th Fighter Corps command. At 'top secret' level the US might have know this during the war. But when No Gum-sok defected from the KPAAF right after the war, he told a detailed story of the arrangement at Antung (he personally knew the Soviet ace Pepelyaev for example). But No's accounts remained classified until after the Russians themselves had publicized the actual situation.

As far as 'honchos' and amateurs, examination of both sides' records show USAF combat reports describing MiG 'honchos' in certain combats, and poorly skilled pilots in others, when the same Soviet regiment was encountered in both! The limit of human perception in combat is a fascinating topic IMO.

*7 'F-94's were claimed by the Soviet 196th Regiment/324th Division same time and place, the ace Yevgeny Pepelyaev's gun camera shot clearly shows an F9F turning hard to get away, no F-94's even in Korea at the time, no other straight wing jets in air combat that day. Although, the Marine pilot when released from captivity in 1953, claimed he successfuly evaded the MiG but then ran out of fuel.

Joe


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 26, 2012)

Great follow-up, Joe.

".... it illustrates, possibly, that USN pilots typically well trained in gunnery, in inferior AC, performance wise, can win an encounter against probably experienced and well trained pilots."

I agree - but also think the Grumman cats are all-around much tougher birds than the Mig's - despite the straight wings and fixed tanks. And remember also that they were armed with 4 20mm canons, not M.G.s

Joe B - I understand you are diplomatic  - but - what is your view of the description of Russian Mig pilots that I linked to at the lend Lease website, a few posts back in this thread. 

I am familiar with reading Soviet accounts of things and get a sense of where the truth is being viewed from behind Party-Colored Glasses.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 26, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Joe B - I understand you are diplomatic  - but - what is your view of the description of Russian Mig pilots that I linked to at the lend Lease website, a few posts back in this thread.
> 
> I am familiar with reading Soviet accounts of things and get a sense of where the truth is being viewed from behind Party-Colored Glasses.


The only really solid facts we can ever determine is what the opposing sides' original records say about air combat. Very detailed US records show air combat losses in Korea perhaps 15% of Soviet credits (including the few non US, UN air combat losses), with the main uncertainty being how to account for competing Chinese claims. But the claim accuracy was around the same in the period of the MiG war before significant PLAAF invovlement (a few definite NK MiG victories are known, but they aren't statistically significant).

Soviet and Japanese fighter claim accuracy in the 1939 war with Japan were only slightly higher; and US *bomber* claims in WWII were typically only around 10-20% accurate (though it was much harder for bomber gunners to verifty destruction of enemy fighters and avoid duplicate claims than for fighters). So the Soviet rate of claim accuracy was low but not totally beyond the bounds of anything else ever seen.

And when I say 'claim accuracy', I mean compared to what detailed opposing records say. I can't prove that USAF/USN/USMC records weren't all 'cooked up' to 'hide' air combat losses, or deliberately misclassify air combat losses as accidents or AA losses, as proponents of Soviet claims often insist was commonly the case. And I agree that left over (or rekindled) Cold War type distrust of the West plays a part in such claims of US record fudging. But my own opinion based on lots of research in those records is: not plausible, at least as having happened enough to change the answers significantly. None of the people claiming such fudging have ever researched US records themselves, that I know. There's a mountain of details behind the secondary sources those people have seen, and it's not plausible to me that all those details were made up and recorded in secret; the reports we're speaking of were only declassified decades later, some only pretty recently. There are a few cases where US loss causes are uncertain, but it doesn't change the answer a lot.

But by the same token I wouldn't jump to conclusions about Soviet then secret records being full of *known* falsehoods. I don't assume they misreported their own losses, and when it comes to how many enemy planes you shot down, who really knows, ever? Only the enemy really knows which of his planes didn't come back (there was some counting of wrecks by the Soviets, but it has all kinds of problems if you study it closely, the clearly documented wreck reports all agree with US records, ie cover a fairly small % of the claims). Some accounts by Soviet veterans hint at fudging up claims on purpose. They were paid for victories, since they were theoretically individual 'volunteers' (though in reality their units were just assigned to combat in Korea). But to be fair, some published anecdotes about USAF record keeping have said stuff like 'unless an a/c actually crashed in NK it wasn't counted as a combat loss'...and that's just not true if you look at the records. You can't project a few, perhaps erroneous, anecdotes over a whole system of record keeping. So I personally don't know for sure if Soviet units exaggerated their claims on purpose.

Joe


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 26, 2012)

Joe - check out the following link and while there click through to the "Aces" page as well. Interested in your view ...

Korean Air War

Chairs,

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... It was made possible after a Taiwanese AIM-9B hit a Chinese Communist MiG-17 without exploding, the missile lodging itself in the airframe of the MiG after which the pilot was able to bring both plane and missile back to base. According to Ron Westrum in his book "Sidewinder", the Soviets obtained the plans for Sidewinder from a Swedish Air Force Colonel, Stig Wennerström, and rushed their version into service by 1961 copying it so closely that even the part numbers were duplicated, although none of the known Soviet sources mention this. Years later, Soviet engineers would admit that the captured Sidewinder served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet and allied air-to-air capabilities. In 1972, when the Finnish Air Force started using Sidewinder (AIM-9P) in their Saab 35 Draken fighters, they were already using Soviet -made Atoll in their MiG-21s; Finns found the two so similar that they tested Sidewinders in MiGs and Atolls in Drakens ..."



No offense meant and I know you are just quoting sources, but my gut reaction to a fired mach 2.5 missile stuck in a recipient airframe smacks of BS. I would much more believe espionage or another complicated theory. But perhaps that is contrary to Occams Razor.

Along those same lines, I have read that many of these "honchos" were attributed to WWII vets that had defected. I'm not buying that one either. Their might have been a historical record of one or two, but I don't believe for a second that US/Western European fighter pilots defected or were captured and indoctrinated post 1945 to participate in Korea.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 26, 2012)

"... But perhaps that is contrary to Occams Razor." 

Unlikely. Occam pretty much nailed it. 

Still ... it's a great story ... and every regime has it's great stories .... and I appreciate that. I just prefer my stories to be 'uncollectivized'.

And "Honchos" is an American term (from the occupation of Japan experience, IIRC) let's remember. The Soviets called themselves volunteers (admittedly involuntary volunteers). 

The best part of that anecdote, for me, was how the Finns used their Atolls interchangeably with their Sidewinders 
"... In 1972, when the Finnish Air Force started using Sidewinder (AIM-9P) in their Saab 35 Draken fighters, they were already using Soviet -made Atoll in their MiG-21s; Finns found the two so similar that they tested Sidewinders in MiGs and Atolls in Drakens ..."

Gotta love those dogged Finns ... (lemonade out of lemons). They know how to use anything .

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Unlikely. Occam pretty much nailed it.
> 
> 
> MM



Yes he did indeed.


----------

