Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Korean War MiG/Saber exchange rates...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Korean War MiG/Saber exchange rates...

    This thread will eventually be moved to the "History" forum. If you can't cite the source, I don't want to see it here. You've gotta post numbers, references to those numbers, and preferably numbers taken from the archives. Granted, nobody's perfect, but at least make it good.
    The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

    I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

  • #2
    There are couple of (incomplete) sources that maybe used to start initial descussion;
    1. Korwald database. (About 2800 incidents total. Considered as 90-95% complete for all "UN" losses numbers, many of the causes listes as "unknown"). http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm
    2. Acig lists (Mostly incomplete at least for DPRK/VVS part): [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]
    Last edited by lurker; 17 Jan 06,, 21:40.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lurker
      There are couple of (incomplete) sources that maybe used to start initial descussion;
      1. Korwald database. (Considered as 90-95% complete for all "UN" losses numbers, many of the causes listes as "unknown"). http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm
      2. Acig lists (Mostly incomplete at least for DPRK/VVS part): [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]
      It was interesting to read Korwald database...... I was knowing only about acig.org before. In general Korean war was a blood bath for UN pilots..... especially for bombers. Soviet Union lost much less aircraft and even less pilots. One of the explanations for this which I read was just like Germany losses over Brittain - too few fuel was left in the tanks of US pilots to fight a maneuvrable dogfight..... Moreover they were opposed by the best of Soviet pilots who were raised on their experience against German pilots.

      I once talked to an old man - pilot who fought there.... he remembered that they had bad feeling fighting against americans and british..... especially british. They still remembered them as allies and he personally had experience of their support from british pilots near Murmanks in 1942-43. He remembered that both sides were quite ethic.... all avoided shoting right to the cabin and never shot a parashuting pilot..... while in WW II this was a common pratice.... a decending German/Russian pilot could easily get load of shells, and hitting right into the bomber's cabin was most desirable.

      Comment


      • #4
        Mig-15 vs F-86 Sabre Stats, taken from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_11.html (lists all eng. sources at the bottom).

        As you see Mig-15 have a much better trust-to-weight, huge advantage in vertical maneuver, speed is aboout the same, Mig can fly higher. F-86 is more maneuverable, and have weak weapons.

        There were documented cases when Mig's returned having absorbed up to 50 (!) .50 bullets.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by lurker; 17 Jan 06,, 20:44.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ho hum. I can post linked resources that claim a healthy F-86 kill advantadge, but i've already done so numerous times in past threads. Horrido, what did you go and drudge this back up for?

          LOL...

          PS: 50 bullets is less than a seconds firing time for the F-86s six Cal.50BMGs. That 'weak' armament suite is the same one that won the airwar over europe in the wings of the P-51D. Again....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            Ho hum. I can post linked resources that claim a healthy F-86 kill advantadge, but i've already done so numerous times in past threads. Horrido, what did you go and drudge this back up for?

            LOL...

            PS: 50 bullets is less than a seconds firing time for the F-86s six Cal.50BMGs. That 'weak' armament suite is the same one that won the airwar over europe in the wings of the P-51D. Again....


            The P-51 won the air war over Europe???? It certainly played a part...... but won the whole war? Thats way too much of an overstatement.

            As I see it, the spitfires and hurricanes played the most important fighter role over Europe.

            P-51, I would say kicked real butt in the pacific war
            Last edited by Yarmuk; 17 Jan 06,, 23:57.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Yarmuk
              The P-51 won the air war over Europe???? IT certainly played a part but wouldnt it be too far to say that it won the whole war
              Not until the dawn of the later P-51's was there a fighter with the range sufficient to escort our bombers to destination and back. It was certainly a decisive aircraft in the air campaign against the ME-109's. In the european theater, I'd have to agree with Snipe.

              In the Pacific theater, I'd have to stick to my personal favorite, the F-4U Corsair.

              Comment


              • #8
                Toss in the F6F Hellcat j, and we're in total agreement. :)

                The P-51D provided local air superiority to bomber formations all the way to berlin and back(Unless released for low level egress strafing attacks. P-51s did tremendous damage to German rail lines and other infrastructure during the war). This allowed for much larger and more accurate daylight bombing raids all across germany, even as our bomber loss rates plummeted. Within 9 months of the introduction of the P-51 Mustang into the ETO, the Luftwaffe had been shattered, allowing the Allies complete air supremacy for Operation Overlord. I can post about a gillion links that echo everything j and i said. Seeing as how none of us was there, where do you think i came up with my opinion to begin with? I don't just make this stuff up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  Ho hum. I can post linked resources that claim a healthy F-86 kill advantadge, but i've already done so numerous times in past threads. Horrido, what did you go and drudge this back up for?

                  LOL...

                  PS: 50 bullets is less than a seconds firing time for the F-86s six Cal.50BMGs. That 'weak' armament suite is the same one that won the airwar over europe in the wings of the P-51D. Again....
                  Well, I think F-86 was the last one armed with .50's, all the latter were cannon armed. I don't know why .50 were dragged by USAF to 1950s while all the others were putting cannons already. Why dont you post the weight of fire per sec?

                  p.s. I doubt that F-86 can swallow just one 37mm shell.
                  Last edited by lurker; 18 Jan 06,, 00:23.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=lurker]Well, I think F-86 was the last one armed with .50's, all the latter were cannon armed. I don't know why .50 were dragged by USAF to 1950s while all the others were putting cannons already. Why dont you post the weight of fire per sec?

                    It's not worth the effort. "A lot" is sufficient for me.

                    Originally posted by lurker
                    p.s. I doubt that F-86 can swallow just one 37mm shell.
                    The 37mm sucked for air combat, it was mainly for anti-bomber use. ROF and velocity were far too low for jet-jet combat.

                    The US stuck with .50s for as long as it did because when you look at what we were shooting at, it was completely adequate to the task.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by M21Sniper
                      The 37mm sucked for air combat, it was mainly for anti-bomber use. ROF and velocity were far too low for jet-jet combat.

                      The US stuck with .50s for as long as it did because when you look at what we were shooting at, it was completely adequate to the task.
                      Thats what I am trying to say all along, F-86's were not the primary target - primary target were bombers. Actually some of the regiments that fought in Korea were transferred to PVO right after that.

                      imho, All that was to get the stupid idea that "A-bombing would be a picnic" out of some heads.

                      p.s. Btw, Soviets got their hands on first F-86 exactly like that - he got hit by ONE 37mm right behind the cockpit. Damaged the ejection seat, and was forced to land on water.
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by lurker; 18 Jan 06,, 00:57.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "Freak" hits may be freak, but they do occur.

                        The 'golden BB' is what US pilots call a 1:million shot. I call it bad luck...

                        LOL.

                        At any rate, the US was never forced to fight big heavy bombers, so never had any need to field larger guns. Once the Tu-4 was in service in decent numbers the USAF switched up to a 20mm gun fit.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          "Freak" hits may be freak, but they do occur.

                          The 'golden BB' is what US pilots call a 1:million shot. I call it bad luck...

                          LOL.
                          Looks like Pepelyaev had too many of those "golden BB's", because it was Pepelyaev's shot.

                          At any rate, the US was never forced to fight big heavy bombers, so never had any need to field larger guns. Once the Tu-4 was in service in decent numbers the USAF switched up to a 20mm gun fit.
                          Imho, as soon as fighters approached 10 tonns weight .50's became obsolete.

                          Remember when USN abandoned .50's for 20mm for anti-aircraft use? ;)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree that switching to cannon calibers was eventually the right course of action, and i think that if you look at it historically the US military wasn't really hurt at all by waiting so long to make the switch.

                            F-86s shot down a hell of a lot of Mig-15s with .50cal fire. Six of those throw a hell of a lot of lead and give an extremely dense shot stream(I am sure that's not the right term, lol).

                            The USAF eventually ended up with the M-61 Vulcan, and that's about as good an all-around dogfighting cannon as has ever been devised. Massive firepower and a heavy caliber in a pretty compact lightweight package. Hard to go wrong there.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by M21Sniper
                              I agree that switching to cannon calibers was eventually the right course of action, and i think that if you look at it historically the US military wasn't really hurt at all by waiting so long to make the switch.
                              It depends on a point of view. Of course, .50 cals shake the plane much less that all that big guns, and make it easier to aim. But other benefits are questionnable.

                              F-86s shot down a hell of a lot of Mig-15s with .50cal fire. Six of those throw a hell of a lot of lead and give an extremely dense shot stream(I am sure that's not the right term, lol).
                              They claimed that they shot "a lot", where did they find so many Mig's is another question. ;)

                              Btw, how about this table? [1] ;)
                              Attached Files

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X