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.
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.
The F-86's flew more sorties per plane. They sortied anytime weather would permit dispatch of strike a/c. Especially from 1952 on the MiG's chose their opportunities and often stayed on the ground. Their typically much larger force, total order-of-battle wise v just their F-86 opponents, also didn't fly as intensively per plane. As already mentioned the F-86's operated generally near the edge of their radius, MiG's much closer to their bases even considering their shorter range. Also the F-86's engine seemed to be less reliable, a genuine demerit in plane to plane comparison, but nothing to do with pilot effectivieness in air combat.
As far as 'recorded as' v actual cause, I've researched that in some detail and there's little validity to the common suggestion that Soviet overclaiming is partly explained by US understatement of combat losses. As I mentioned, the actual air combat loss total of F-86's might be around 90, v the 78 official total, but that's 90 specific planes by tail number each with its own story, some of that difference is just sloppy book keeping v the 78, and I'm counting as lost planes returned safely but air combat damage never repaired, which might be debated and moreover we don't know the practice in that regard for the Soviets. Besides that, F-86's classed non-combat pretty clearly were non-combat: lack of corresponding MiG claims same day, time and place, accident reports detailing the circumstances, etc. There were a significant number of AA losses too, especially in 1953 when fighter bomber units converted to F-86's. Some were claimed by Soviet AA units.
I don't think the non-combat loss point really goes anywhere compared to the more solid datum of head to head combat result. Again basic question, once and if we accept the basic air combat loss figures, and relative similarity of F-86 and MiG, how can it reasonably be debated that the side going 1:4+ in kill ratio was really as effective as the side going 4+:1? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Joe
