HellToupee
Banned
- 90
- May 30, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
3. But there's a direct logical connection between their high overclaims and their effectiveness that you're ignoring in that statement. According to each side's losses per then-secret records the F-86 v Soviet AF MiG-15 kill ratio in Korea was order of 4-5:1. The MiG-15 and F-86 each had performance advantages over the other. On balance IMO, almost all US pilot opinion, and a lot of Soviet opinion especially reading between the lines, the F-86 was the more practically effective fighter v. fighter plane on balance (MiG the better interceptor, probably). But the F-86's advantage was nothing like enough to establish a 4 or 5:1 exchange ratio with equal pilots. That ratio is strong evidence that the US pilots were more effective on average.
Yes but if American pilots were soo much better, why do they have far greater non-combat losses, russian non combat losses are less than 20 while on the other side almost half the losses are recorded as non operational.
F-86s over Korea were flown at least 200 miles into MiG alley, sometimes through adverse weather, fought for 20 minutes over target and sometimes returned into a socked in base with IFR equipment no better than what was used during WW2. Don't forget the pilots going out of Japan as well.Yes but if American pilots were soo much better, why do they have far greater non-combat losses, russian non combat losses are less than 20 while on the other side almost half the losses are recorded as non operational.
I guess it sheds some light but it doesn't wholly disprove his statement. I don't agree with his statement 'not counting' that US pilots of that era would probably be more effective. I think any two roughly comparable planes like Yak-9U and F4U-4 would probably come out close to even if the pilots were really equal. I tend to agree with his projection of (something like) 3:1 advantage in favor of F4U's with contemporary US units v Yak-9U's with contemporary Soviet units though, for the same reason F-86 v MiG came out as lopsided or more than that. That's a pretty solid data point, many months of action and head to head, no need to estimate based on relative effectiveness v the Germans as we must in WWII itself.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:
First, Soviet loss breakdown isn't totally clear. AFAIK nobody has done an analysis of individual a/c fates as has been done for F-86's. A commonly quoted total is 345 total Soviet MiG losses sometimes quoted 335 in combat. But as I mentioned above the most detailed Russian language published source totals combat loss at 319, of which it provides details or at least month in which lost for around 300. Dropping the combat loss total even fairly slightly considerably expands the operational losses, assuming the overall total is correct (it might also need to be revised up a bit under closer scrutiny) but doesn't change the air-air kill ratio much. IOW the kill ratio stat is robust even if the figures shift a little, the assumption of very few Soviet operational losses is not as robust. The basic math here is a large number of MiG air combat losses (perhaps 600 among the three allies) and a comparatively small number of F-86 air combat losses (perhaps 90, most but clearly not all of which were caused by the Soviets), so % of losses which were operational isn't really the appropriate comparison. It would be number of operational losses or operational losses per sortie.Yes but if American pilots were soo much better, why do they have far greater non-combat losses, russian non combat losses are less than 20 while on the other side almost half the losses are recorded as non operational.
Comparing losses inflicted by one fighter force on another is not the way to compare the fighter forces? If that's what you are saying I very much disagree.if i understand right JoeB use soviet number for loss as air combat loss and if it is this is not good mode for a comparison
Comparing losses inflicted by one fighter force on another is not the way to compare the fighter forces? If that's what you are saying I very much disagree.
Joe
Honestly I trust Soviet claims of both victories and losses as much as I trust the Iraqi Information Minister.If I'm not mistaken the clandestine Soviet Air Force in Korea was manned by volunteers who also received awards and money for their successes. With Joe Stalin as my boss, I'd hate to report that I was anything other than highly successful and I think I might have to stretch the truth to do it!
Honestly I trust Soviet claims of both victories and losses as much as I trust the Iraqi Information Minister.
Do you believe 'less than 20' and if so why? Can you point to another air force WING flying in bad weather for three years (in more reliable a/c like P-47s and Spitfires, etc) that had that few non - operational losses?
And where do you get this bountiful information from?NATO also lists a large number of unknown aircraft losses.
No I didn't, sorry if I was unclear. 319 is the total of *combat* losses given in German and Seidov's "Krasnye d'iavoli na 38-i Paralleli", and all combat losses were air combat, UN AA never fired at MiG's. The book details almost 300 of those in the various chapters. Comparing it to more detailed sources that cover partial periods of the war, they tend to leave a few out here and there, and a few they describe as non-combat losses look like combat losses when referring to US details of the same combats. The tone of the book is quite overtly nationalistic. I don't see a plausible argument that that book overstates Soviet MiG combat losses.Yes. but it is not what you done, you compared US, F-86, loss for enemy fighter to total loss for soviet forces
Overall Navy F9F's downed 5 MiG's, all Soviet, without loss to themselves. That included the first victory against the MiG's, first to show up in Soviet records as a loss that is, Nov 9 1950; another Nov 18 1950 (two were credited) and 3 more in the combat you mention, Nov 18 1952 (again two were credited plus a probable). There were only 4 MiG's present in that last combat though, v 3 F9F's in immediate combat (the fourth of the division couldn't develop full thrust so couldn't climb into the combat). One of the F9F's was hit. The Soviets downed one Marine F9F July 21 1951 without loss (they were credited with 7 'F-94's' in the combat). There were several other inconclusive combats between Soviet MiG's and Navy and Marine Panthers (with the Soviets pilots receiving credits for various straightwing types in most of them), and a couple of inconclusive fights between Marine F9F's and PLAAF MiG's; 11 combats altogether.In Korea, it had to be a big advantage for Mig pilots that if they saw they were at a tactical disadvantage they could flee across the Yalu where US AC were not supposed to follow. The F86s did not have that sanctuary. This perhaps is too small a sample to be significant but when 7 Migs out of Russian bases attacked the CAP of a US CV the two and then a third F9F5s knocked down two or three Migs(can't remember for sure) with no losses. The Panther could not have been equal in ACM to a Mig 15 and those were Russian pilots.
Yeah, I pretty much do. The Germans might have overclaimed same as we did and the Japanese did, and we all had a love for propoganda, but the Germans were very internally competitive and very good about documenting things on their own soil.Just a question Clay - do you trust the German claims during WWII?
Venganza