Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But there's also 'reverse national pride' sometimes, wanting to take certain other countries down a notch and so not looking into facts carefully enough when that's what they appear to do. I'm not saying it applies to you, but it does apply IMO to cases where Soviet accounts of Korea are presented in a misleading way.Hi Catch22,
Clay Allison: Take a look at how many 10 plus kill aces the USA and the Soviets had in Korea. Also check out who was the top scorer in that conflict, and consider that the high scoring US pilots did so primarily against North Korean pilots while the Soviets racked up their scores against arguably the best trained pilots in the world.
I admire national pride, but it needs to be backed up with more tangible arguments than opinion.
DerAdlerIstGelandet: I stand corrected but, looking at the list you still have to go a ways down before you get to Marseille. Change my statement to read 160 kills and it still makes my point.
But there's also 'reverse national pride' sometimes, wanting to take certain other countries down a notch and so not looking into facts carefully enough when that's what they appear to do. I'm not saying it applies to you, but it does apply IMO to cases where Soviet accounts of Korea are presented in a misleading way.
The big picture in Korea is not that most US victories were against the North Koreans. Over half the officially admitted MiG-15 air combat losses were Soviet AF (319 per one good Russian source, other sources vary slightly). Most of the rest were PLAAF (224 is their official air combat loss total). The North Koreans themselves probably only lost a few dozen MiG-15's in air combat. F-86's claimed almost 800 MiG's (other fighter types claimed few, B-29's were credited 27 but most of those can be seen to have been overclaims) v that probably ~600 actual MiG-15 air combat loses. Looking into claims in WWII the number of actual losses per 100 credits is usually lower than that, often way lower, on average definitely lower. Nothing has been 'debunked' about F-86 claims in Korea that isn't or wouldn't be, usually more so, if WWII claims were given the same scrutiny.
On the Soviet side however, Soviet claims of F-86's alone enormously exceeded F-86 air combat losses per original records on the US side, quite detailed, and with various different kinds of records that all paint about the same picture (save interesting exceptions and mysteries here and there). The Soviets claimed upwards of 650 F-86's (named by type in specific combats), the Chinese 211 and again the NK's per one Russian sources made a serious (non-propaganda) claim of 40-some F-86's. Officially 78 F-86's were lost in air combat, but checking plane by plane I'd say up to 90 or so could be classed air combat losses. It's still an astounding 10:1 overclaim ratio (not to be confused with kill ratio) among the 3 allies in combat v F-86's (it wasn't quite as bad for claims v other types). And case by case there's no evidence the Soviet claims were greatly more accurate than Chinese claims.
Assuming proportionality therefore the F-86 kill ratio v the Soviets was 4-5:1, overall 6-7:1. Those are very high numbers for a ratio between top of line fighters verified by loss accounts of both sides. Higher numbers still quoted for WWII fighters are claims, usually subject to heavier discounting than the F-86 claims, and often include non-fighters and/or clearly inferior fighters as targets.
Back on the pilot level, the scores of high claiming Soviet pilots greatly exceeded the likely actual victories they scored: it's easy to see comparing detailed accounts combat by combat from each side. The two sides' accounts almost always agree when and where combats took place and types and rough numbers of a/c involved, but the Soviet credits are pretty consistently way in excess of the actual US losses. It's a prime example of why comparisons of credited scores of pilots from different AF's in WWII are also essentially meaningless.
Here's an example analysis of the score of the highest credited Soviet pilot:
Korean War Ace Nikolai Sutyagin
Joe
Hi Davparlr,
Interesting, I hadn't been aware of the 14 ft propeller. Even the smaller ones yield rather high tip speeds, which is not helping propeller efficiency at all.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Look, I'm not knocking the Soviet pilots personally, I'm down on their training program. The Soviet Union always had a cavalier disregard for the lives of their troops and that went for their pilots as well. You look at kills, I look at losses. The Soviet pilots were killed in droves and you can't really argue that point. They just weren't trained up to peacetime standards the way American pilots were throughout the war.
How many exactly is that? Could you give us some numbers or sources to back up your opinions?The Soviet pilots were killed in droves
Hi Davparlr,
>The F2G was powered by the humongeous P&W 4360 engine of 3000 hp. Maybe the prop had a different design.
Oops, I had confused the FG and the F2GI think the R-4360 had a different reduction gearing, so it probably turned this 14' propeller slower than the R-2800 variants theirs.
(On WWII Aircraft Performance, there is an experimental F4U listed with a 13' 0" propeller and a reduction gearing of 0.4 instead of the usual 0.5. They were going for speed with this one!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
That's a fair question to ask, but on what do you and the previous poster 'dig down and the Soviets gave as good as they got' [let's assume WWII, since that's patently untrue in Korea] base your opinions, of Soviet parity with German fighters it seems you think? The Korea case is relevant in suggesting tremendous caution in evaluating Stalinist era Soviet fighter combat effectiveness based on Soviet accounts, which is what you seem to be mainly doing. The same is true of their 1939 air combat with the JAAF in the Nomonhan conflict: their claims were very inflated (around 6:1 in that case, not as exaggerated as in Korea but still worse than average for WWII-era fighter overclaiming).Clay:
Getting back to WWII.
How many exactly is that? Could you give us some numbers or sources to back up your opinions?
That's a fair question to ask, but on what do you and the previous poster 'dig down and the Soviets gave as good as they got' [let's assume WWII, since that's patently untrue in Korea] base your opinions.......but again by what two-sided measure do you guys instead conclude the Soviet fighters 'gave as good as they got' in the GPW in general?
1. But you are implying parity, with either Germans in WWII or US in Korea, and you repeat it this recent post.1. I did not post either of the above statements you mention, so I'm not clear why you are asking me to respond to them. Unless it's a reverse-reverse national pride thing?
2. I've given examples of Soviet training programs and fighter tactics manuals, I've given statistics of Soviet top aces, I've shown that the Soviet hierarchy was concerned about their pilots and did not have callous disregard for them, and I've shown that there was no shortage of pilots (except for a short time in 1941).
3. You have provided a good argument for Soviet overclaims in Korea, but nothing to indicate that their skill level was any less than their opponents.
4. Indeed pilots accounts from either side indicate that they considered the opposing pilots equally skilled.
5. As far as Vietnam goes, USSR wins again, Petrovich got 6, Cunningham 5. (and there are a bunch of North Vietnamese pilots who did better than either)
6. But, I'm not trying to prove that Soviet pilots were better than American ones. My point has been from the very start that statements based on vague impressions and patriotic fervor are not worth the pixels they are written on.
Overall, I'd say a long series of contest would return a 3:1 kill advantage over the Yak-9, not even counting the fact that American pilots have always been better than Russian pilots. (No offense, but 3 wars in which they can be compared head to head (Korea, Vietnam) or against common opponents (WWII) renders a clear enough result for me.
I'm not trying to imply parity, I'm stating that one measurement of quality of pilots is how many achieved 20 or more kills. 203 for the Soviets. 27 for the Americans. Keep in mind that some of those Soviet aces were flying P39s, which Americans had little or no success with. 203 pilots with over 20 kills is not an anomoly, it's a pattern. We can keep going down the list, and the Soviets are going to come out ahead all the way.
Thats all I need to shed the appropriate light on the original posting: