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
kill ratio.
