Kill Ratios..... - Page 5

Garry · 09-21-2006, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avon1944

That figure does not match the loss of pilots and or aircraft. Currently, this is the latest aerial combat figures for the Korean War. A historian and a Soviet pilot worked together to determine fact from fiction.
"Red Devils over the 38th Parallel," Igor Seidov and Askold German (courtesy of Nikolai Bakalov and Rubén Urribarres).
The latest figures show and 8:1 kill ratio of Sabres over MiGs, not the 13:1 orignially thought. The biggest difference was the number of MiGs while going down from high altitude smoking badly, often made it back to base! Many MiGs had over one hundred fifty calibre bullet holes in it and made it back to base safely. After that many hits and the aircraft smoking to consider it as killed.

........................................
I am closer to the true number than your estimates. The North Viet Namese (NPAF) were only part of the total number of pilots in combat. Soviet, Warsaw Pact, North Korean, etc. pilots fought for North Viet Nam. Just as now Russia is being open about the Soviet pilots fighting in the Korean War, more information is comming to light on the outside participation during the Viet Namese War.
When you check lost pilots, POWs and add a factor for CSAR versus NVAF claims, they are wildly off base.

I would question any source that states the number of F-5's lost! The USAF did not operate the F-5! The F-5 did not have the range to go into NV and the MiG.-21 did not come south. The F-5 and MiG.-21 are both point defense fighters, the fight has to be brought to them.
USA combat losses were high due to ground defenses not air to air.
Soviet figures are among the 'most' doctored figures. If there were American aircraft shot down on a particular day, the Soviets would say there pilots made the kills. If the Americans claimed they shot down several MiGs that day, the Soviets would say their pilots weren't flying that day! Eight MiG.-21's shot down in one month (01/67), they squadron was sat down for about two months before they were flying again. Replace a half a squadron in sixty days! Aircraft were supplied to the VPAF as fast as SAMs were supplied.
The only problem in the re-supply was that most of the aircraft went through PRC. Many MiG.-21's of later models were takened by the PLAAF and substituted with older model MiG.-21's. The Soviets did not like this because they wanted to see how well the new models would do in combat. So the Soviets started send the aircraft by ship until Hanoi and Haiphong Harbors were mined.
Thank You!

Adrian

Hi Adrian, I don't insist on that particular source. I just skimmed through and its figures are close to what I read from beter sources. Both US and North Vietnam were not publishing any reliable loss data..... In USA it was great wave of Propoganda in those years. Some myths created then are still alive. One of them is the scale of North Vietnamese losses.

As an analyst covering aircraft manufacturers in Russia I did see statistics on old manufacturing/delivery to Vietnam from Irkuts, Gorky, and Novosibirsk. It is no LONGER confidential. It is TIMES less than what is being stated for NV losses. This brought my attention..... I researched on this issue and came to understanding that North Vietnam COULD NEVER loose a fleet of more than 200 fighters. It just never HAD IT.

I asked from old people of those times why so few were delivered and got answer. So few aircraft were supplied to North Vietnam because THEY LACKED PILOTS to fly....

Yes there were few Soviet, Chezh and East German pilots in Vietnam.... they were trainers! Few of them participated in actual combat until one was shot down, captured and killed during release operation. Since then NO WARSAW UNION pilot participated in combat. Hence since mid 1966.

Chinese did participated in the combat. I don't have any figures on what was delivered by China.... However China, was not GIVING UP their aircraft. Relationships between Soviet Union and China became quite BAD then.... and China new that they will not get anything replacing their equippement from USSR.

So lets put it strait - US figrues on air-to-air losses in Vietnam are skewed by propoganda.

highsea · 09-21-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

But remember some PAF F-86s were armed with AIM-9B/GAR-8 Sidewinder missiles whereas none of the IAF Hunters or Gnats had missiles, yet they shot down so many enough to earn themselves the title "Sabre-Killer".

Going by ACIG's database, which is the best one available, and ignoring unconfirmed kills and claims by each side, this is what we have.

1965 war: IAF kills 10 sabres and loses 8 hunters and 2 gnats
1971 war: IAF kills 13 sabres and loses 5 hunters and 1 gnat

I am ignoring other types, these numbers are Gnats/Hunters vs. F-86's only. In the 1971 war, several more Hunters were lost to Mirages or F-6's, and the F-86 had several shootdowns of other types.

You can double those numbers on each side if you want to count unconfirmed kills and claims. Whatever blows your dress up.

In 1965, only 3 F-86 victories were by AIM-9, and in 1971 none of them were. This tells you how many AIM-9s were actually available to Pakistan.

The F-86 was a good plane in the 50's, but it was miserably outdated by the 70's. Also, Pak was suffering from US sanctions and was unable to get spares, so the fleet was in poor repair. While part of the F-86 fleet was wired for AIM-9, there were only a very small number of missiles available.

The moniker of "Sabre Killer" may make the Indian public feel better about their own losses, but the actual numbers were pretty even. The Hunters and Gnats were more modern AC than the Sabres, the IAF had greater numbers, and the planes were in much better repair.

In 1971 the IAF had MiG-21's as well, and even lost at least one of these to the lowly subsonic F-86.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Those weren't the Russian but Arab AF Migs with no BVR AAMs, Russian Mig-23s have shot down PAF F-16s during the Afghan campaign.

There was only one F-16 lost, and that was a fratricide. The F-16's wingman shot him down in the clouds with a sidewinder.

Tronic · 09-21-2006, 17:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AviramDj

dont forget the israelis have now new versions of f16's . the f16-i's .
Who knows what they can do exept flying longer ranges .

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16i/

dude... lol.. don't bring Israeli F-16s into this.. we already know they can rape the Migs... I was talking about Pakistani F-16s...

Tronic · 09-21-2006, 17:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

The Hunters and Gnats were more modern AC than the Sabres, the IAF had greater numbers, and the planes were in much better repair.

actually, the Sabre was primarily an air-to-air fighter, whereelse the Hunter is a ground attack aircraft and the Gnats are inferior to the Sabres... PAF was more technologically advanced then IAF in 1965... 1971, it was the other way around...

Tronic · 09-21-2006, 17:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

The moniker of "Sabre Killer" may make the Indian public feel better about their own losses, but the actual numbers were pretty even.

actually the name "Sabre Killer" was given to the Gnat(not the Hunter) when it managed to down two PAF Sabres and badly damaged one on its first engagement....

PS: btw, the name given to the Gnat is Sabre Slayer, not Sabre Killer...

highsea · 09-21-2006, 19:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tronic

actually, the Sabre was primarily an air-to-air fighter, whereelse the Hunter is a ground attack aircraft and the Gnats are inferior to the Sabres... PAF was more technologically advanced then IAF in 1965... 1971, it was the other way around...

It's probably a push- the Gnat was a lot more nimble than the Sabre, and a newer design. The Sabre was better armed. The success of the Gnat highlights the importance of tactics. Even so, the IAF suffered higher losses than Pakistan in 1965 (71 vs 43).

In both wars the IAF outnumbered the PAF by a huge margin, and by 1971 there was not much left of the PAF Sabre fleet. India could afford to fight a war of attrition, Pakistan couldn't.

highsea · 09-21-2006, 19:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

...So lets put it strait - US figrues on air-to-air losses in Vietnam are skewed by propoganda.

Garry, the numbers of US losses can not be skewed, but the way they were lost could be- IOW, the Pentagon might claim AAA fire or engine failure when it was actually another AC that caused the loss.

Our planes are public property, and the taxpayer likes to know their whereabouts. You can look up the serial number of any plane on public databases, and know it's history, if it's still in service, if it was lost and how, etc. The numbers built and their deployments are public records.

When it comes to propaganda, the Soviet Union had it hands down over the US. I would put my money on our numbers any day, since it is virtually impossible to fake- too many people know how many were made and which ones were lost. If the Pentagon tried to lie about it, the Congress would rip the Generals a new one.

How they were lost can debated, how many were lost can not.

Tronic · 09-21-2006, 20:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

It's probably a push- the Gnat was a lot more nimble than the Sabre, and a newer design. The Sabre was better armed. The success of the Gnat highlights the importance of tactics. Even so, the IAF suffered higher losses than Pakistan in 1965 (71 vs 43).

the Sabre was used primarily for combat... the RAF adopted the Gnat as a trainer... the only two countries that used the Gnat in a combat role were India and Finland... yes, I'll agree to it that we might have lost more aircraft but the difference wasn't that big.. the main thing was that we achieved air superiority over Pak; which was the main objective...

Quote:

In both wars the IAF outnumbered the PAF by a huge margin, and by 1971 there was not much left of the PAF Sabre fleet. India could afford to fight a war of attrition, Pakistan couldn't.

Yes, but you also must realize that Pak had a huge technological edge over the IAF in '65... Pak was flying Sabres, Mirages and Starfighters... we were flying Gnats, Hunters and Mysteres as our primary air arm... these aircraft couldn't even fly supersonic except in dives!!! We had roughly a total of 6 Mig-21s at that time... and they were equipped with completely useless K-13 air-to-air missiles....

highsea · 09-22-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tronic

Yes, but you also must realize that Pak had a huge technological edge over the IAF in '65... Pak was flying Sabres, Mirages and Starfighters

Pak didn't get Mirages until 1967. They were forced to turn to France due to the US embargo. They did have 12 F-104's and their Sabres in 1965.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tronic

the main thing was that we achieved air superiority over Pak; which was the main objective...

Bullsh*t. Air battles continued right up to the last day. If anything, Pakistan was slightly ahead in kills those final days.

It's practically impossible to get unbiased information about that war, both sides claimed victory in a war that was by any reasonable measure a stalemate. The Indian and Pakistani sources both are nothing but propaganda, and nobody else gives a damn.

Tronic · 09-22-2006, 21:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

Pak didn't get Mirages until 1967. They were forced to turn to France due to the US embargo. They did have 12 F-104's and their Sabres in 1965.

ok, my info on the Mirages is misplaced....... but I do know that many Arab countries provided aircraft to the Pakistanis.. even Iran, shipped in aircraft to replace the ones Pakistan had lost...

Quote:

Bullsh*t. Air battles continued right up to the last day. If anything, Pakistan was slightly ahead in kills those final days.

Fine, I'll agree to it that most claims are biased and it is hard to judge who won since '65 was a stalemate... but 1971 air war was defenitely in India's favour with IAF achieveing complete air superiority over Pak....

Quote:

It's practically impossible to get unbiased information about that war, both sides claimed victory in a war that was by any reasonable measure a stalemate. The Indian and Pakistani sources both are nothing but propaganda, and nobody else gives a damn.

Chuck Yeager, the Defense Representative to Pakistan sure gave a damn.... when his private aircraft was bombed in Pakistan by IAF jets during the '71 war... in his own words, "The Indian way of giving Uncle Sam the finger!' [32]. Page 7...

VovaLee · 09-26-2006, 13:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

When it comes to propaganda, the Soviet Union had it hands down over the US. I would put my money on our numbers any day, since it is virtually impossible to fake- too many people know how many were made and which ones were lost. If the Pentagon tried to lie about it, the Congress would rip the Generals a new one.

Can you give me a valid list of win/loses in Vietnam war?
You so mush speak obout it.
Something like this:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml

highsea · 09-26-2006, 13:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VovaLee

Can you give me valid list of win/loses in Vietnam war?

What's wrong with the ACIG list you posted? It's probably the best one available.

Note the disparity between the lists. There are very few "white" (unconfirmed or claims) on the US list vs the Vietnamese list. As I said, there may be disagreement over the way a plane was lost, but not if it was lost at all. This is typical- we saw the same thing in Serbia and Iraq- large numbers of claimed kills against USAF, with no supporting evidence. Yet virtually all the US numbers are confirmed kills- that means there is photo evidence, recovered wreckage, captured pilot, etc.

The standards for a US pilot to be credited with a kill are very high- it must be certain or their is no credit. We see tons of claims from the other sides, yet no wreckage or pictures to confirm. If they were real kills, just give us the tail numbers! We can then look them up and see if it's true.

Everytime a US plane is shot down, it's a huge propaganda event. To imagine that the other side is keeping it secret is just not credible. In Vietnam, we know which pilots were shot down, captured, killed, etc. It's a matter of public record.

avon1944 · 09-27-2006, 00:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

I researched on this issue and came to understanding that North Vietnam COULD NEVER loose a fleet of more than 200 fighters. It just never HAD IT.

Maybe at any one time but, the total number of MiGs that saw combat was far far higher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

Since then NO WARSAW UNION pilot participated in combat.

The rates as one of the great lies along with..... the check is in the mail, come with me tonight and tomorrow I will marry you, etc!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

China, was not GIVING UP their aircraft. Relationships between Soviet Union and China became quite BAD then.... and China new that they will not get anything replacing their equippement from USSR.

China was replacing their older aircraft with the newer models being shipped from the Soviet Union to North Vietnam by rail. When the Soviet Union got tired of this, they started shipping the MiGs by sea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

US figrues on air-to-air losses in Vietnam are skewed by propoganda.

The problem is the Viet Namese count on American losses does not match the number of pilot killed plus the number of POWs. In America, a combat loss is public knowledge. In some places in the world a family can lose a son, the government says don't talk about so the world doesn't know about it. Right after the family is informed, the local press is also informed of the losses. If someone in a war zone is there because of the CIA or Haliburton then, those kills are not US Military losses.

I also find it interesting the USA does not seemed to have these descrepancies in recording accurate figures of aircraft kills with the German, Italian or, Japanese air forces during WW2. Only the Soviet air forces and their client states, seemed to dispute the figures while they kept their participation in the conflict a secret. It has only been within ten years or so that the Soviet Air Force's part in the Korean War has come to light officially.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

Garry, the numbers of US losses can not be skewed, but the way they were lost could be- IOW

Thank You, well put!

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

What's wrong with the ACIG list you posted? It's probably the best one available.

Tom Cooper's website has data that has been quoted by the US State Department! He has printed in one of his books information obtained through the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) which shows the US and Saudi intelligence knows a lot more about aerial combat between Iraq and Iran, than what is being spouted to the public. I respect the ACIG just like I do Janes, AW&ST, US Naval Proceedings, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

We see tons of claims from the other sides, yet no wreckage or pictures to confirm. If they were real kills, just give us the tail numbers!

Oh, you mean like the claims against the F-15's? No wreckage at all.

Adrian

YellowFever · 09-28-2006, 03:24 AM

It's a world-wide conspiracy.

They shoot our fighters down all the time.

They just don't want to embarrass us by showing the wreckage.

Captain Drunk · 09-28-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

The standards for a US pilot to be credited with a kill are very high- it must be certain or their is no credit. We see tons of claims from the other sides, yet no wreckage or pictures to confirm. If they were real kills, just give us the tail numbers! We can then look them up and see if it's true.

You think even an ancient AA-2 Atoll from a Viet Mig-21 into the tail pipe of an F-4 is going to leave behind debris?

09-28-2006, 03:24 AM	#74 (permalink)
YellowFever Contributor Join Date: 07-17-06 Location: In front of my computer...duh! Posts: 502	It's a world-wide conspiracy. They shoot our fighters down all the time. They just don't want to embarrass us by showing the wreckage. __________________ ...If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Modern Air-to-Air kill record thread	StrikeEagle	Military Aviation	61	09-01-2008 04:26 AM
True Islam	Insomniac	International Defense Topics	252	09-11-2007 15:55 PM
Conflict in Iraq: The sniper who shoots on video	Ray	The War in Iraq	3	11-10-2006 07:03 AM
Soldiers Say They Were Ordered to Kill Young Iraqi Men	troung	The War in Iraq	23	09-02-2006 17:21 PM
Sniper School Teaches 'Very Personal Way To Kill'	Shek	The Western Alliance	11	06-12-2006 23:44 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)