US army vs. Russian army

[Bill]

"Man, YOU were saying something about reality? We never even had that much planes in Korea at all. I wonder if we had so many fighters in SU. Just an example of American propaganda."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-86.htm

Sorry Shurrif, but you're wrong.

"The Sabre saw extensive service with the USAF during the Korean war, in which it achieved an outstanding exchange ratio of nearly 14 to 1 in combat with the Soviet-built MiG-15. Surely the F-86 must be ranked, along with its illustrious World War II ancestor the P-51 Mustang, as one of the great fighter aircraft of all time."

[Bill]

"Exactly! NOT for 1:1 Tank vs Tank dueling.

What are Abrams MBTs doing right now in Iraq? Are they fighting other tanks?"

Well gee moron, there are no Iraqi tanks left to kill.

"Well, I've asked to correct me, you did it, thank you. But these systems showed themselves poorly? They were easily beaten? Just a pleace of cake, isn't it?"

Actually, yes...the US had a very high success rate against Vietnamese SA-2s. Something like 98% of all SAMs fired at US Aircraft over Vietnam missed.

"Anyone ever found just one of these 'state of the art' jammers? They have shown that on TV? And you have seen "Made in Russia" logo on it?"

Yeah we found them, then we bombed them(with GPS weapons no less).

"And another thing - man, you have forgotten about Kornets and WMD. Oh, wait, WMD doesn't counts - it was supplied by the West "

There were no Kornets in Iraq.

[Bill]

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fms...s/rs-storm.htm

Perhaps you should read this US Army report of Soviet military leadership comments at the time of the Gulf war.

It will open your eyes.

[dalem]

Exactly! NOT for 1:1 Tank vs Tank dueling.

Actually the M1 series is designed for about a 1:10 ratio.

-dale

[highsea]

AFAIK me means T-80U which has 2E42. And its not a FCS, its a Gun Stabilyzer.

You could be right, I was going by this:

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The tank fire control system is the 1A42 which includes 1V517 ballistic computer, two-axis electrohydraulic weapon stabiliser, rangefinder sight stabilised in two axes as well as a GPK-59 hydro-semicompass azimuth indicator and an azimuth indicator for the turret rotation. This system permits firing on the move.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/

edit to add: this is what they have on the T-90:

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The T-90S has the 1A4GT integrated fire control system (IFCS) which is automatic but with manual override for the commander. The IFCS contains the gunner's 1A43 day fire control system, gunner's TO1-KO1 thermal imaging sight which has a target identification range of 1.2km to 1.5km and commander's PNK-S sight.

The gunner's 1A43 day FCS comprises: 1G46 day sight/rangefinder with missile guidance channel, 2E42-4 armament stabiliser, 1V528 ballistic computer and DVE-BS wind gauge.

I see that the 2E42-4 is the stabiliser, maybe this is the one in the T-80U, it's just not mentioned by name. (tanks are not really my thing...)

[highsea]

the T-80 can survive a 120mm round, what are you talking about, a T-80 can survive 6 RPG-7 shots in the REAR on average in and a T-72 can survive 3 on average in the REARl

You might find this interesting...

20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials

On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)

ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)

APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150. The trials yielded the following outcome:

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.

T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.

T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.

No other ATGMs could penetrate.

APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.

T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

Shtora-1 Trials
10 Kornet ATGMs with removed warheads were fired at a tank with a crew. 4 ATGMs hit the tank, the other 6 deviated to the left of the target in the middle of the flight.

Conclusions (VF)

RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.

Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.

Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is possible, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.

Data provided by Lt.Col. Vladimir Karpov
ATW Testing Center NPO "Geodezia"

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

[Bill]

The M-829A3 Sabot has at least 930mm of penetration capability at 1000meters.

A T-80U isn't stopping that, and neither is a T-90.

Round

Armor Defeated
@ 1km (cm)
M829 64
M829A1 71
M829A2 81
M829A3 93

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog2/miscellg.htm

[Dima]

oh, are you serious, wait, let me double check

oh, damn, lol, thought they were tlaking about T-80, my bad, so that's the T-90, one of the guys has a video of it firing, so that will be interesting, i'll get the one n the T-80 soon

well, nonetheless, it can fire on the move using ATGM's, wtr to shells, i'm not sure

"this is really lame"

well, i'm outnumbered on this forum always, so it'd be nice to have some friends that i'd have some commonality with, help me out a bit

"outstanding exchange ratio of nearly 14 to 1 in combat with the Soviet-built MiG-15."=propaganda, obviously, they ahda 4:1 ratio, period

"AFAIK me means T-80U which has 2E42."

so, Shuriff, the T-80U also uses the 2E42 stabilizer?, yea, it's not FCS

"2E42-4"

i believe that that is for the T-90, Shuriff, do they also use that for the T-80U?

oh, highsea, i've already read that

"RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations."

was that not towards the stripped target? i don't believe it was the one with the kontakt ERA

"RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA."

hello, i'm talking about the RPG-7, not RPG-26 or 29

i'm talking about RPG-7's

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thre...hread_id=73708

3-6 hits, and for the majority of the combat in Grozny the tanks were fighting without ERA!!!

the T-90 is a better tank than the T-80U and the UM1, protection wise, that's for sure

[Bill]

""outstanding exchange ratio of nearly 14 to 1 in combat with the Soviet-built MiG-15."=propaganda, obviously, they ahda 4:1 ratio, period"

Sorry nitwit, but i already posted a link to perhaps the most respected military information site on the net stating 14:1.

Either find one of equal repute that states otherwise, or stop living in denial.

[Dima]

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

the T-80U ahs 815mm-920mm of frontal armour, it'll be a close one

http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com...hp/t43142.html

also, can knock out 700mm at 4km range!!!, imgaine what it would do closer up

[Dima]

lol, don't start calling names, you can handle it, can't you, you're sa grown man, it's not 14:1, 4:1

http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v91korea.htm

4:! against Soviet, and 8:1 against Chinese, it was the North Koreans that screwed up

also, the north Koreans used Yak aircraft a lot, so, that so called 10-1/14-1 ratio is not only against MiG-15's

http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2.../msg00176.html

also, 60-80 F-86's downed, please, many statsments reveal that it was a lot more

http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2.../msg00076.html

http://www.brushfirewars.org/aircraf...m/mig_17_1.htm

http://www.acepilots.com/korea/george.html

jeeze, too much work, either way, whatever the ratio, the Americans had air supriority because of training, not superior aircraft

[Bill]

I called you a nitwit because you are.

That's your fault, not mine. :)

Lets forget the globalsecurity.org figures for a second, and focus on your 4:1 kill ratio.

The russian mig pilots from Korea were almost all top WWII aces.

And you're gonna try to state that their problem was a lack of training???

LOL!

Dude, Highseas was right about you. You bring nothing whatsoever to this board but stupidity.

And here are some more 8:1(or better) links wrt the F-86:

"With speeds often nudging the sound barrier, and performing combat manoeuvres at 600 m.p.h. imposing crushing G-forces, the F-86 pilots ran up a spectacular kill ratio of 8:1 against the MiGs."
http://www.airartnw.com/huntingparty.htm

"They achieved a 15:1 kill ratio over their Chinese, Korean and Russian opponents. By the final stage of the Korean War Sabres were used in ground straffing as no opposition was encountered in the air."
http://www.constable.ca/f86.htm

"In response, the U.S. sent the Sabre to Korea, setting up one of the classic aerial confrontations of all time. On paper, the MiG-15 and the F-86A were fairly evenly matched and with the introduction of the improved F-86E model, the Sabre could easily out fly the MiG at low to medium altitudes and hold its own at higher altitudes. However it was the superiority of the American Sabre pilots that made the difference in what became known as "MiG Alley". In less than three years of intense combat, often against overwhelming odds, F-86 pilots established a kill ratio of better than 8-to-1 over the MiG-15"
http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com...-86/Page1.html

"During the Korean War, Far East Air Forces (FEAF) claimed the destruction of 976 enemy aircraft. Some claims made by persons or units assigned or attached to FEAF were not confirmed when they were evaluated against available evidence (e. g. gun-camera film or eyewitness reports). Sufficient evidence has been found, however, to support awards of official USAF credits to 470 persons for the destruction of 935 enemy aircraft. Of these 935 credits, 895. 5 have been bestowed upon members of the USAF and the remaining 39. 5 upon members of other services--US Navy, US Marine Corps, Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force- -who served in combat with FEAF, the superior USAF command in the theater. The credits are for aircraft destroyed in the air (893) and on the ground (42). Most of them (907) were won by fighter pilots; some (27) went to gunners on bomber and reconnaissance aircraft; one was given to the pilot of a light bomber.

In no case was a credit divided among more than two persons, but if two men participated in the destruction of one enemy plane, each received one-half of one credit.

Awards of "official credit for destruction of enemy aircraft" were made by means of general (later special) orders published by Headquarters FEAF (later redesignated Headquarters Pacific Air Forces). FEAF, however, did not begin to award credits until nearly 10 months after the first enemy plane was destroyed; consequently, it is possible that some of the early victories were not recorded. In fact, credits for the first three victories, which were won on 27 June 1950, were not awarded until 13 February 1962. Additional credits may be bestowed if in the future sufficient evidence is found to justify such action. The list which follows covers the Korean credits awarded through 1 June 1963.

* For a list of enemy aircraft destroyed by personnel of the US Navy and US Marine Corps, including those destroyed by Navy and Marine pilots attached to FEAF units, see Malcolm W. Cagel and Frank A. Mans on, The Sea War in Korea (Annapolis: US Naval Institute, 1957), pp 526-527. The pilot of the light bomber, a B-26, was Capt Richard M. Heyman of the 8th Bombardment Sq, 3d Bombardment Gp. For a brief account of the action in which Heyman destroyed a P0-2, see Futrell, The USAF in Korea, 1950-19 53, p 282."
http://www.korean-war.com/USAirForce...victories.html

The US had 39 aces over Korea, all but one flew the F-86 Sabre:

1. Jabara, James 15.0
2. Becker, Richard S. 5.0
3. Gibson, Ralph D. 5.0
4. Creighton, Richard D. 5.0
5. Davis, George A., Jr. 14.0
6. Marshall, Winton W. 6.5
7. Whisner, William T., Jr. 5.5
8. Gabreski, Francis S. 6.5
9. Moore, Robert H. 5.0
10. Kincheloe, Iven C., Jr. 5.0
11. Love, Robert J. 6.0
12. Westcott, William H. 5.0
13. Latshaw, Robert T., Jr. 5.0
14. Adams, Donald E. 6.5
15. Kasler, James H. 6.0
16. Thyng, Harrison R. 5.0
17. Low, James F. 9.0
18. Jolley, Clifford D. 7.0
19. Blesse, Frederick C. 10.0
20. Risner, Robinson 8.0
21. Baker, Royal N. 13.0
22. Lilley, Leonard W. 7.0
23. Foster, Cecil G. 9.0
24. Overton, Dolphin D., Ill 5.0
25. Fischer, Harold E. 10.0
26. McConnell, Joseph M., Jr. 16.0
27. Fernandez, Manuel J., Jr. 14.5
28. Hagerstrom, James P. 8.5
29. Johnson, James K. 10.0
30. Jones, George L. 6.5
31. Ruddell, George I. 8.0
32. Garrison, Vermont 10.0
33. Moore, Lonnie R. 10.0
34. Parr, Ralph S., Jr. 10.0
35. Baldwin, Robert P. 5.0
36. Buttelmann, Henry 7.0
37. Bolt, John F. (USMC)** 6.0
38. Curtin, Clyde A. 5.0
39. Bettinger, Stephen L. 5.0
Total Credits: 305.5

http://www.korean-war.com/USAirForce/usafaces.html

[Dima]

of all people, i thoguht at least you wouldn't go so far as to use names, i thought that you were the most objective, honest and one of the nicest guys here, wow, i was wrong


globalsecurity, i believe that not one of my links are from globalsecurity.org

i wasn't talking about the bad training of Russian piltos, i was talking about the inferior training of North Korean and Chinese pilots

the MiG-15 had a speed of 683 miles per hour, while the Sabre had a max speed of 622 miles per hour
(wrt your first link)

the ratio is defintely not 14:1,as a total of(based on American sttas) 792 Migs were shot down, in addition with only 78 F-86 Sabres

"Statements are often made that imply true US air combat losses were 2-3 times reported losses."

also, those "amazing" Russian pilots that you claim of, only received 200 flight hours a year, compared to Japanese which received 1,000 flight hours(WW2)

i'd say that this is my best link, you should read this one of all of them

http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2.../msg00076.html

between the months of October-November of 1951, shot down 31 planes(12 F-86's, 4 F-80's, 2 F-51's, and 13 B-29's) while only having a total of 14 downed MiGs, giving them a 1:2.2 ratio in favour of the MiG pilots

the main reasons why the US won is because of superior training, especially in the last year of the war, and the non-existence of G-suits in Russian MiG's, that was huge

the North Korean, Chinese and Russian fighters were also outnumbered

Top Russian Aces:Kills:Comments

Nikolai V. Sutyagin:21
Yevgeni G. Pepelyayev:19
Lev Kirilovich Shchukin:17
Sergei M. Kramarenko:13
Ivan V. Suchkov:12
Stepan A. Bahayev:11
Konstantin N. Sheberstov:11
Grigorii U. Ohay:11
Mikhail S. Ponomaryev:11
Dmitri A. Samoylov:10
Pavel S. Milaushkin:10
Dmitri P. Oskin:9
Mikhail I. Mihin:9
Nikolai M. Zameskin:9
Aleksandr P. Smorchkov:8
Grigorii I. Pulov:8
Serafim P. Subbotin:8
Semen A. Fedorets:8
Vladimir I. Alfeyev:7
Fiodor A. Shebanov:6
Grigorii I. Ges:6
Anatoly M. Karelin:6
Arkadii S. Boitsov:6
Nikolai I. Ivanov:6
Stepan I. Naumenko:6
Boris S. Abakumov:5
Grigorii N. Berelidze:5

a total of 27 aces, these are only the aces who flew the MiG-15, only Russian aces

http://aeronautics.ru/nws002/migs_in...cts_part_i.htm

"During the three years of the Korean war, pilots of the 64th IAK (Istribityelno Aviatsionny Korpus, or Fighter Aviation Corps) flew 1,872 combat sorties and shot down 1,106 US-made aircraft, of which 650 were "Sabres."Some 335 MiGs were lost during the war."

http://aeronautics.ru/nws002/the_hunt_for_the_sabre.htm

Russians had a 3.3:1 kill ratio, also, the total number of American aces shooting down 5 or more planes was 40, while for the Russians, this was 51

well, i'm not even going to try to convince you that the 14:1 ratio is BS, and the 10:1, sure, 8:1 is reasonable against Chinese pilots, and 10:1 to Korean pilots, but not Russian pilots

have a nice day

link for aces is: http://www.acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html

[sniperdude411]

My grandpa flew the f86. He says they're very easy to control, stabilize, and target enemy aircaft. During free-time/training, he'd fly them down into the grand canyon.
Some great stories he had during his Air Force career.

[Dima]

cool, hey, what sniper rifle is that in your sig? btw, nice XM-8 on the side, you heard of the XM-29 or IOCW?

i have respect for the F-86, the only problem with it compared to the MiG-15 is that it's ceiling was a lot lower, it had a "weaker" armament, and was hell for maintenance(very complicated) compared with MiG-15

personally, i don't much care about past conflicts, but it is nice to listen to stories told by people involved in WW2 and Korea, listening to their war stories is very interesting, especially fighter pilots, good 'ole dogfights, very interesting, even infantry have extremely interesting soldiers, too bad everyone in my family that participated in WW2 and Korea are dead now, it sucks, dead before i was even born, damn

hopefully, the future will involve more dogfights, with the continued development of stealth, everything will start getting closer, soon, dogfights will be the thing, with laser weapons, cool, lol, what a crazy future, electromagnetic shields etc.