Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
For those who can read Russian it will be interesting to read this history note about RAF in Korea in 1950-es. It is first time I see records of what RAF was doing there.
For those who can read Russian it will be interesting to read this history note about RAF in Korea in 1950-es. It is first time I see records of what RAF was doing there.
I think is says RAP at the top, not RAF. Anyway, the article goes on about how good the US and Russian pilots were and what rubbish the N Korean and Chinese chaps were. It also slags off most of the aircraft except the Sabre (US) and MiG-15; of special note was the Meteor of the RAAF that was found to be large and slow, therefore, easy meat. The RAF gets a mention in another article to be found at: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/air-war.html
Like most wars, the Royal Air Force didn't do an awful lot; biased? Mmmm, why not, I'm an ex-Pongo.
I think is says RAP at the top, not RAF. Anyway, the article goes on about how good the US and Russian pilots were and what rubbish the N Korean and Chinese chaps were. It also slags off most of the aircraft except the Sabre (US) and MiG-15; of special note was the Meteor of the RAAF that was found to be large and slow, therefore, easy meat. The RAF gets a mention in another article to be found at: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/air-war.html
Like most wars, the Royal Air Force didn't do an awful lot; biased? Mmmm, why not, I'm an ex-Pongo.
There is little talk of Viet Nam, and the kill ratio there. Korea is also a contested history. It seems that the US airpower was not invincible, but not exactly irrelevent either since air superiority kept the US and UN forces from being overrun... Maybe even superior in both scenario's, if not totally superior....
It would seem that both sides of the cold war had advantages, and expoited them, but both sides were inferior at times, if only briefly..
War is hell, and unpredictable with technology and luck.
Don't expect either side to win for what exists prior to the first shots being fired...
many western sources claim a 10:1 advantage over aircraft during the Korean war, but it was realistically anout 4:1
This is interesting:
The 64th Fighter Aviation Corps was sent to fight in Korea in Nov 1950. They performed very well, shooting down over 1,300 UN aircraft of all types while losing only 345 of their own. 16 Soviet pilots made ace, with the top scorer being Evgeni Pepelyaev with 23 kills. This info comes from the magazine article, and the author got his info from various US and Russian publications. The 2:1 MiG-15 vs. F-86 statistic is from the "Red Star" series.
The 64th Fighter Aviation Corps was sent to fight in Korea in Nov 1950. They performed very well, shooting down over 1,300 UN aircraft of all types while losing only 345 of their own. 16 Soviet pilots made ace, with the top scorer being Evgeni Pepelyaev with 23 kills. This info comes from the magazine article, and the author got his info from various US and Russian publications. The 2:1 MiG-15 vs. F-86 statistic is from the "Red Star" series.
So who is more credible?
Russian/Soviet soruces who are historically experts at disinformation? Or the western sources who have to accept the criticism of a free press, with their credibility at stake?
Tweet
Comment