Author Topic: MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)  (Read 7862 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« on: March 18, 2001, 12:57:00 PM »
From Aviation History magazine,
         by Dale Tapp

"Splash one!" That outburst really made me sit up and strain to hear the "flyboy circuit" loudspeaker over the din of louder squawk boxes blaring out tactical signals and situation reports in the crowded confines of the combat information center on my Pacific Fleet destroyer.

My ship was part of Task Force 77 during the Korean War. It was de rigueur for the force to be located in the Sea of Japan in reasonable proximity to the east coast of Korea while conducting around-the-clock air operations in support of U.S. ground forces. One bleak day during the last winter of the Korean War, the task force was operating near the northern fringe of its usual stomping grounds...and thereby hangs a tale.

At first, the 10,000-odd crewmen of the task force, long accustomed to the erratic zigzag of into-the-wind and out-of-the-wind flight operations, scarcely noticed when their ships continued to steam in a mostly northern direction. But as the task force maintained its movement to the north, the crews became more alert. And with good reason--for sure enough, in due time a few blips appeared on the air-search radar scopes in the direction of Vladivostok, a seaport in southeastern Russia near the border with North Korea.

Soon many more blips appeared on the radar screen. With solid overcast plus a chilly sea haze preventing shipboard observation of aircraft, listening in on CAP (combat air patrol) comments was the best way of keeping tabs on the situation topside. From radio chatter over the flyboy circuit it was apparent that Navy pilots could identify the blip traffic as Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 jet fighters--in large numbers.

To prevent any U.S. aircraft from accidentally straying into Soviet air space, the Navy jets orbiting over the task force were now under tight control by radar operators on the carriers. Just outside the orbit area, a swarm of MiG-15s milled around in an uncertain manner, with a few MiGs occasionally making attacks and then suddenly breaking off, as though trying to lure U.S. planes into Soviet air space.

Then, after perhaps 20 minutes of this game, four MiGs made a firing pass at two fighters from the carrier Oriskany; two more American planes immediately dove to assist their buddies--and an eight-plane dogfight erupted.

Amid the babble of transmissions and background static that filled the radio circuit, bits and snatches of flyboy talk could be distinguished: "...squeal, awrk...Chuck, follow me...BLEErap ...are you...SPRok...missed...skreEE CH...I'm OK...grawk...on target...SQUuak...splash one!... EEErawk...breaking off...sque...."

Then, as quickly as it had begun, the dogfight was over. No additional MiGs had joined the fray, so the rest of the CAP continued their tight orbits over the task force, warily watching but taking no action. The score in that brief encounter was one MiG definitely shot down, another MiG that disappeared into the overcast trailing smoke, and a third damaged MiG losing altitude and limping off toward the north. All of the Navy jets returned safely to their carriers.

A few minutes after the fight, one of the forward destroyers of the task force spotted a parachute descending several miles ahead and radioed the screen commander to ask if a rescue should be attempted. "Negative," came the prompt answer, followed a moment later by a signal from the OTC (officer in tactical command) directing Task Force 77 to change course to the south. At that time, the van destroyers were exactly 50 miles south of Vladivostok.

The task force steamed back south, the MiG blips disappeared from the radar scopes, and the entire incident became "unhistory." By not picking up the downed Soviet pilot, everyone except the hapless pilot was saved from awkward explanations. No public comment about the matter was ever made by the Russians, and the only official U.S. announcement, a few years later, merely mentioned that on one unspecified occasion there had been an "air incident," no details given. And that was that. Apparently, that unplanned clash was such a hot potato that both governments decided to relegate it to the status of a nonhappening to prevent any public inquiry.

One of the more extraordinary aspects of the affair was a conversation over a fleet radio circuit about half an hour after the incident, between the commanding admiral (on one carrier) and the two Navy pilots credited with the kills (on another carrier). The dialogue went approximately as follows:

Admiral: Congratulations, gentlemen. Excellent work!

Navy Pilots: Thank you, Admiral.

Admiral: You certainly made us proud of you, and I'm very pleased with your flying skill and the performance of your aircraft. I suppose you were able to out-maneuver the MiGs?

First Navy Pilot: Ah, no, the MiGs could outturn us....

Admiral: Oh. So you had to use your speed on them?

Second Navy Pilot: No, sir, they were faster than us.

Admiral: Ummm, well, you could out-dive them?

First Navy Pilot: No, sir, they could dive faster than we could.

Admiral (after a pause): You could out-climb them?

Second Navy Pilot: No, sir.

Admiral (sounding a bit flustered): Well, uh, er, a splendid job of flying, gentlemen, really splendid--again, congratulations!

Navy Pilots: Thank you, Admiral.

To put that conversation in perspective, the Navy fighter planes involved were Grumman F9F-5 Panthers, good, solid carrier planes but not known for dazzling performance. Navy fighter pilots, however, were extremely well trained and skillful. The result--at least in this instance--was that Soviet fliers in the vaunted MiGs proved to be no match for Navy pilots in Panthers.

This Panther versus MiG-15 dogfight was not the only combat between U.S. and Soviet pilots during the Korean War. During the latter stages of the conflict it was no secret that about half of all MiGs opposing Air Force North American F-86 jet fighters near the Yalu River sanctuary were piloted by Russians, and most of the rest by Chinese, with only a few North Korean pilots. The F-86 Sabre--by far the best fighter plane in the war--racked up more than an 8-to-1 victory ratio over MiG-15s during the war.

But without detracting from the achievements of Air Force F-86 fliers, the 3-to-0 score against MiG-15s by Navy pilots in relatively slow Panthers rated as an outstanding performance by any standard... even if it was classified as nonhistory. END


It should be noted that the Navy finally acknowledged this event in 1999.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2001, 06:00:00 PM »
Didnt the panther have 4 nose mounted Hispanos....
We all know what happend dont we guys.


Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2001, 09:01:00 PM »
The Official USAF history of the Korean War (published 1961) has this to say:
On 18 November, when Task Force 77 attacked the North Korean border town of Hoeryong, unmarked but obviously Russian MIG-15's swarmed down from Vladivostok.  A flight of three Pantherjets from the Oriskany engaged several MIG's which were heading toward the fleet and shot one of them down.  At General Clark's recommendation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to make no public disclosure of the Navy's clash with the Russians.  The text cites a primary source, and the USN Official History (Cagle and Manson, The Sea War in Korea, Annapolis, USNI, 1957) -- so it was made public within 5 years.

Hallion's text (The Naval Air War in Korea, 1983) adds some details:
The Oriskany had just come into the Korean War on Nov. 2, 1952.  The squadron was VF-781, the "Pacemakers", a reserve outfit, and the Oriskany was using the first F9F-5s in the theater (most of the others were -2s, the difference being mostly a bigger engine and a RR gunsight).
The division leader was Lt. Claire R. Elwood, his wingman was Lt. (j.g.) John D. Middleton, the section leater was Lt. E. Royce Williams and his wingman was Lt. (j.g.) DAvid M. Rowlands.  But Elwood's plane suffered a fuel boost pump failure, so he sent Williams' section in.  Anyway, I've got in front of me the pertinent section of the Oriskany AAR if you're interested.  Suffice to say, Middleton got the "Splash" kill, Williams was given a kill, and many of the other MiGs were suspected of not returning to base.  Williams trapped with no rudder control.  Anyway, Williams and Middleton got the Silver STar, and Rowlands got the DFC.  President Eisenhower met and chatted with the three pilots in Gen. Van Fleet's private suite in Seoul.
"The President-elect and his son, Army Major John Eisenhower, mixed highballs for the flyers and then, together with General Mark Clark, listened enthralled as the three described the fight 'complete with hand gestures and body English'."

Hardly sounds like "Unhistory" to me.  The event was known about, published (in unclassified form) and studied by cadets in the USN and gun-toting history nuts everywhere not 5 years after it happened.  The pilots got heavily decorated and even pounded highballs with Ike.  The Soviet pilot was lost due to a "plotting error", and I'd rather believe that explanation.  Soviet pilots were flying in the Korean war, and one of the major goals of the UN forces was not to prove their participation -- the UN forces knew there were Soviets flying, and they kept quiet about it -- but to capture a MiG pilot alive, and get more information on this aircraft.  The Communist forces did everything possible to prevent this from happening: MiG pilots were not allowed over water, for fear of UN rescue, and they were required to stay well behind the front lines (hence MiG Alley).  If you believe the US histories, MiG drivers even strafed a fellow pilot who ditched in the Yellow Sea.

In other words, the event wasn't made public at the time, and there never was a huge expose', but it wasn't denied as "unhistory" until 1999 either; the fact that the USN allowed information concerning this even to appear in an official history implies recognition that it did occur.  And, to read the description, it was a helluva dogfight.

If you're interested, I could scan in the four pages or so I've got on it.

[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-18-2001).]

Offline Suave1

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 30
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2001, 09:51:00 PM »
LOL, the "Pacemakers" was that a unit of recalled retirees ?

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2001, 11:48:00 AM »
Widewing, frankly speaking - it is a story of an unprovoked invasion into a Soviet airspace and an attack on Soviet CAP. I seriously doubt that MiG pilots were clear to fire at the invaders. "Kills" awarded to US pilots are in no way confirmed, like most of the "kills" in Korean war.

Yankees invaded Soviet airspace at the Far East many times, and all the horror stories about Soviet pilots landing their planes to kill ejected US pilots are a good example of an official militarist propaganda. Soviet media never told such obvious lies.

Dinger, strafing a fellow-pilot that ditched in Yellow sea is a roadkill.

I hope you understand why it is so. Just like that "8:1" kill ratio for the only decent UN fighter in Korea.

Ura! Ura! New flame war OTW!

/*Boroda prepares to listen to another bunch of cold-war American fairy-tales*/

------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

Offline Dmitry

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 147
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2001, 12:48:00 PM »
SALUTE to all  
Boroda I am happy that you are here.
Widewing I respect your knowledge deeply.
But with all do respect to you Widewing I have a few remarks and comments if you plz.

First of all let me give you this number:
During Korean war 64 IAK has flown 1872 sorties during which they scored 1106 air victories - 650 of which were Sabre. Also 64 IAK has lost 335 MiG's. Have to add that this comes only to 64 IAK.

Others ridiculous sources point 14:1 Sabre vs MiG.

 
Quote
The F-86 Sabre--by far the best fighter plane in the war
By far??? where is that far? IMHO the MiG was by far better plane over Sabre. If you can decide when to engage and when to disengage is what makes you in plane by far better then enemy. The rest is up to strategy but that completely different part of the storie.


------------------
Best regards
Dmitry aka vfGhosty

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2001, 12:49:00 PM »
Boroda, note that I prefaced that statement with, "If you believe the US histories"  
I'm not so naive as to believe everything the US government claims.

Now, about this story in particular:
I don't think it was an incursion of territorial waters or airspace.  At the higher levels, the areas approaching the Manchurian and Soviet borders were restricted; most what you get is a lot of cowboy pilots streaming across looking for a fight (not massive formations of B-29s "accidentally" bombing the wrong target).  That certainly had happened before (and numerous times), and most of the cases during the Korean war probably haven't been officially acknowledged.
In fact, in one of the previous attacks in NE Korea, two F80s from the 49th Group repeatedly strafed a airfield north of the Siberian border on 8 Oct, 1950.
NOw, two years later, the UN is coming back North and attacking those "restricted" targets near the border.  Was there a border violation?  Did there have to be?  Common sense and previous experience required the commander of Vladivostok to scramble a defense.
There were a hell of a lot more than 8 MiGs in the area that day.  Why were so few involved in the combat?  And the Panthers weren't the only ones up; there were a couple squadrons of Banshees airborne.  Why didn't they get vectored in?

Here's the Oriskany's side of the beginning of the conflict:
"The bogies closed fast, their condensation trails clearly visible to the climbing Panthers.  The trails passed overhead--CIC reported that they had overflown the intercepting PAcemakers-- and then, removing any doubt as to their intentions, the bogies themselves turned to close with the Panthers; they wanted some sort of confrontation. Still far below, Royce Williams tallyho'd the bogies while climbing through 15,000 feet, identifying them as seven MiGs "flying very high."
[at this point, I'll editorialize and say that "removing any doubt" and "they wanted some sort of confrontation" are fine cases of petitio principii]
Then we get the AAR:
"In a loose abreast formation, they came approximately overhead, made a descending turn and split into two groups, as though to bracket.
At this point the Pacemakers lost contact as the MiG condensation trails had ceased.
Because of his engine trouble Lt. Elwood and his wingman, Lt. (j.g.) John D. Middleton, remained at 13,000 feet.  MEanwhile, Lt. Williams and his wingman, Lt. (j.g.) DAvid M. Rowlands, continued their climb to 26,000 feet under CAP control since visual contact had been lost.  AS they leveled off, the two PAnther jets spotted four MiG's initiating a flatside firing attack from the ten o'clock position.  Lt. Williams broke his section 'hard left' in a defensive counter and spoiled the effectiveness of the run, although he could not bring his own guns to bear.  The MiG's recovered to the right in a strong out position with the fourth plane especially far back.  Lt. Williams continued his wrapped-up turn and brought his section around for a tail-end shot at the last MiG.  Firing from 15 degrees off the tail, his first burst from the four 20-mm guns put the enemy jet into a smoking, uncontrolled spiral."

Now, I'd be very interested to find out what the other side of the dogfight sounded like.  My guess is "who attacked first" will be an open question.  Incidentally, the AAR makes no bones about who fired first.  Nor does it conceal the fact that the Soviets fired back -- one plane suffered serious damaged but managed to recover on the Oriskany (musta been a 23mm shell).

[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-19-2001).]

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2001, 01:57:00 PM »
Dinger, thanks for the detailed info! Sorry, but I doubt that I'll be able to find Soviet information in that accident.  

The airfield 8km from Vladivostok that was strafed by F-80s on October 8th was called Sukhaya Rechka (Dry River), 9 fighters from 821th IAP were damaged, fortunately no personell hurt.

Some thoughts on the situation:

First, I doubt that Soviet fighters could ever think of attacking first. "Not to provoke", but show capitalists that Soviet side knows they are here and force them to stop flight operations. BTW, how close to Vladivostok they were? Looks like pretty close, if they were trying "not to enter Soviet airspace". OTOH, if Soviets command decided to attack the task force - US should have suffered severe losses. Only one mock attack, because I don't believe Soviet pilots opened fire, and if they did - maybe only to force Americans to change their direction.

As for the lt. Williams's kill - the situation looks exactly like the famous "first jet-to-jet kill" by maj. Brown on November, 8th, 1950. He reported the same effect: smoke, quick descent, while Soviet MiG (flight leader Kharitonov) simply disengaged witout a single bullethole. Smoke trail was caused by an engine throttle, and explosion of the drop tanks was probably considered as a plane crash.

BTW, according to Soviet data, first F-80 was shot down by MiG on November, 3rd, around 3 PM, by gv. sr. lt. Khominich, 25km Soth-West from An'dun. First Panther was shot down on November, 9th, around 9 AM, by gv. sr. lt. Stulov.

------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

[This message has been edited by Boroda (edited 03-19-2001).]

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2001, 02:14:00 PM »
Great stuff Boroda.  BTW, the two F-80 drivers were brought in front of a courts martial, but not found guilty of anything.
one or two notes:
The Aviation History article quoted above shows a general ignorance of the readily available US historical data.  It reads like the personal account of someone who was in the radio room of one of the ships, heard something that "never happened", and thought that it remained that way.  The Oriskany AAR has the carrier 100 miles south of Vladisvostok, which would work well with the picket destroyers being 50 miles out of V.  As you know, with jets, that's right next door.  Panthers orbiting the TF would be something like 5 minutes from Soviet Airspace.  Whoever was in charge of the air defense in Vladivostok had the duty to get a CAP in the air.
And yes, nobody had any doubt that if the Soviets wanted to attack the TF, bad things would have happened -- this is one of the reasons why UN forces didn't want to provoke the USSR.  Can you say IL-28?
(of course, the USSR didn't want to provoke the US too much either; and few wanted to give the rest of the world a nasty suntan)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2001, 07:18:00 PM »
   
Quote
Originally posted by Dmitry:
SALUTE to all      
Boroda I am happy that you are here.
Widewing I respect your knowledge deeply.
But with all do respect to you Widewing I have a few remarks and comments if you plz.

First of all let me give you this number:
During Korean war 64 IAK has flown 1872 sorties during which they scored 1106 air victories - 650 of which were Sabre. Also 64 IAK has lost 335 MiG's. Have to add that this comes only to 64 IAK.

Thank you for the kind words.

As to 650 Sabres being shot down by MiGs. Dmitry, don't accept the Soviet, cold war numbers. They're completely bogus. The total number of Sabres lost to enemy action in Korea was just 78. It's easy to close one's mind and say that this is just American propaganda. However, we live in a society where the press will uncover the truth. Had another 475 Sabres been missing, it would have been impossible to conceal it. Another important fact is that every Sabre was fitted with a gun camera. Nearly every comfirmed kill of a MiG was backed up by film of it being destroyed.

Where's the Soviet gun camera film?

   
Quote

Others ridiculous sources point 14:1 Sabre vs MiG.

That certainly is excessive. However, the USAF claims 792 MiGs destroyed against 78 Sabres. This is slightly over 10:1.

I recall that the Soviets also claimed about 4 times as many B-29s shot down as were actually lost. Honestly, did anyone expect the Soviets to tell the truth? Experience seems to indicate that they couldn't even agree as to what lie to tell.    

Seriously, If, like the USAF, the Soviets can provide undoctored gun camera film to substantiate their claims, perhaps historians will consider their claim as being somewhat accurate. However, should we expect to see such undoctored film Especially when lying was an official state policy.

No offense is intended Dmitry, I am merely pointing out that the Soviets of the Stalinist era would never admit to being on the short end of the stick.

   
Quote

 
Quote
The F-86 Sabre--by far the best fighter plane in the war
By far??? where is that far? IMHO the MiG was by far better plane over Sabre. If you can decide when to engage and when to disengage is what makes you in plane by far better then enemy. The rest is up to strategy but that completely different part of the storie.[/b]

I didn't make that statement. The fellow who wrote the article did. I merely posted the article.

Now, as to the MiG being "far better over plane over the Sabre". There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. The MiG was better is some respects, and inferior in others. I will grant you that the MiG had a greater ceiling, and therefore could and did dictate the terms of engagement. However, once the MiGs came down to the Sabres, disengaging was not so easy. The MiG was slower. It could not dive away. All it could do was try to climb away. Unfortunately, that does not usually work if the Sabre carries more speed into the climb. Moreover, you can't outclimb a stream of Browning .50 caliber slugs.

What the evidence does show is that you have two different, but evenly matched fighters. The difference in result, read that as **verifiable results**, must be found in training and tactics. Indeed, the loss to victory ratio is not far out of line with that seen in conflicts between the Soviets and Germany and with Finland.

If we desire to extrapolate this, we need only look at the various Arab-Israeli wars. In these conflicts, Soviet trained pilots, flying Soviet made aircraft, using Soviet tactics were butchered wholesale.

I believe that history is the best measure of Soviet success in the air. To date, that history does not support the contention that they killed 650 Sabres over Korea. On the contrary, history offers much greater support for the USAF claims.

So please, don't get angry. Just provide the evidence to support your argument.  

My regards,

Widewing

[This message has been edited by Widewing (edited 03-19-2001).]
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2001, 09:49:00 PM »
Widewing, with respect:

A. pointing to gun camera films isn't going to help much unless you can point to a source where someone has gone through each and every one of them to substantiate the claims.  Moreover, gun camera films aren't going to show 78 Sabre losses.

B. Overreporting of kills is extremely common, and is a problem that all air forces have to deal with.  In Korea, for example, the USAF thought they were kicking bellybutton with night B26 Invader raids on truck convoys, destroying per month 10-15% of the entire soviet factory output.  Then one of the "conservative" b26 crews came in and reported hitting an enemy column, destroying "at least 6 trucks" and setting "a raging fire in the target area".  They hit a ROK motor pool.  One jeep suffered a flat tire and 6 ROK soldiers were killed.  So I'm not surprised that the UN overreported MiG kills, nor would I think that anyone would contest that Soviet pilots overreported kills too.

C. Stalin or no Stalin, Dmitry's info comes (If I'm not mistaken) from the squadron records.  This is not propaganda, but internal, military information for which accuracy is of critical importance.  The "68 Sabres lost" due to Air to Air combat comes from a statistical survey published at the end of the war, and has an obvious propaganda value.  Moreover, the arrival of the MiG was a serious blow to the morale of US pilots.  So there's at least good motivation to "cook the books" and keep A2A losses down.

D. Anyway, the overall number of UN A/C lost is pretty high, including some suspicious correspondences between reports of A/C lost to AA fire and 64 IAK reports of A2A kills.

E. Don't judge the Soviets by the performance of their export-grade aircraft handled by non-Soviet pilots.  In Korea, many, many MiGs were flown by Korean and Chinese pilots.  Unlike the Soviets, almost none of them had any time in combat, and, worse, their language was not suited for the quick and clear dialogue necessary for radio comms (they had to invent it as they went along).  Moreover, many of the pilots selected were not of the highest grade:  Lt. No claimed that many MiG drivers were so afraid that, when a sabre got on their six, they advised against the break turn, which would expose the canopy to .50 cal fire.  Instead, they recommended hunching down below the pilot armor, and ejecting before the plane exploded.

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2001, 10:11:00 PM »
Around 6,000 Sabres of all models were manufactured in the US. Are you seriously trying to tell me that over 10% of all Sabres ever produced were shot down by 1 Soviet fighter group?  

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2001, 11:23:00 PM »
But you guys will believe that two US groups shot down 800 MiG-15s?
I'm saying, of course the number of kills for both sides are inflated.  It doesn't matter how strict your scoring methods are; this happened in Korea, and it happened in WWII, to all sides (including the LW).
Overall, (according to USAF sources)the USAF suffered some 1400 operational losses during the Korean War.  About 600 are "Miscellaneous Losses"; the rest are directly attributed to enemy action.  The Navy and the corps only count losses to enemy action, and they had about 500.  

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2001, 11:59:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dinger:
Widewing, with respect:

A. pointing to gun camera films isn't going to help much unless you can point to a source where someone has gone through each and every one of them to substantiate the claims.  Moreover, gun camera films aren't going to show 78 Sabre losses.
/quote]

My understanding is that ALL USAF and USN gun camera film was reviewed and archived. I have spoken with pilots who stated that the film was usually critical to receiving confirmation of a claim. Did the Soviets even have gun cameras? Or like the Japanese, did they claim every aircraft that they fired their weapons at?

Quote

B. Overreporting of kills is extremely common, and is a problem that all air forces have to deal with.  

[snip]

 So I'm not surprised that the UN overreported MiG kills, nor would I think that anyone would contest that Soviet pilots overreported kills too.

I hear the argument that overclaiming was commonplace just about every day. Indeed, within certain Air Forces it was common and grossly out of line to reality. However, the two biggest culprits in WWII were Japan and the Soviet Union. What has been discovered of WWII American units is that overclaiming was generally confined to specific commands. Other commands had a more severe criteria, and in some instances, actually undercounted kills. However, taken as a whole, the U.S. pilot claims were damned close to admitted losses. Especially in reference to Japan

The Japanese were remarkable in their overclaiming. The AVG lost 12 Tomahawks (4 pilots dead) to enemy action in air to air combat. Yet, the Japanese claimed over 160 Tomahawks. Remarkable when you consider that the AVG never had more than 77 aircraft (the balance of 22 destroyed in training wrecks and ground accidents). In return, the AVG has 296 confirmed kills, 230 in air to air.
So, is overclaiming a problem? Yes. However, it was not as extensive with U.S. and Commonwealth pilots as it was with Japanese and Soviet pilots. The overclaiming argument is frequently tossed out to deflect the debate from the facts. Who overclaimed and by how much? Be specific.

 
Quote

C. Stalin or no Stalin, Dmitry's info comes (If I'm not mistaken) from the squadron records.  This is not propaganda, but internal, military information for which accuracy is of critical importance.  The "68 Sabres lost" due to Air to Air combat comes from a statistical survey published at the end of the war, and has an obvious propaganda value.  Moreover, the arrival of the MiG was a serious blow to the morale of US pilots.  So there's at least good motivation to "cook the books" and keep A2A losses down.

Kindly present some data that shows that the USAF (please confine this discussion to the F-86 and avoid contaminating the numbers with
those of the UN as a total) lied and reported a single F-86 as present when it was actually destroyed in aerial combat. Please, just one example will do.

While you're at it, where is the wreckage of the missing 450 Sabres? Where are the dead and captured pilots? Why haven't the families of those pilots asked about their whereabouts? Where are the Soviet gun camera films? Let's see their unit records.

So far, all I have heard is talk. Show us a shred of evidence, reliable, verifiable evidence that 650 Sabres were destroyed in air to air combat. You can look up the serial number of every F-86 lost during the Korean war, both in combat and operational losses. If the Soviets shot down these aircraft, you would think that they would be able to get a serial number from the wreck. Where are those serial numbers? Can they  produce anything to substantiate their claims?

 
Quote

D. Anyway, the overall number of UN A/C lost is pretty high, including some suspicious correspondences between reports of A/C lost to AA fire and 64 IAK reports of A2A kills.

UN aircraft losses were high. however, the large majority were lost to triple A. Again, where are the wrecks and the pilots? Moreover, the UN didn't fly the F-86, the USAF did.  

 
Quote

E. Don't judge the Soviets by the performance of their export-grade aircraft handled by non-Soviet pilots.  In Korea, many, many MiGs were flown by Korean and Chinese pilots.  Unlike the Soviets, almost none of them had any time in combat, and, worse, their language was not suited for the quick and clear dialogue necessary for radio comms (they had to invent it as they went along).  Moreover, many of the pilots selected were not of the highest grade:  Lt. No claimed that many MiG drivers were so afraid that, when a sabre got on their six, they advised against the break turn, which would expose the canopy to .50 cal fire.  Instead, they recommended hunching down below the pilot armor, and ejecting before the plane exploded.

Please, this is getting silly. How much difference exists between export aircraft and
those of the Soviet Union? Same airframe. Same powerplants. Same guns. The difference boils down to avionics and advanced weapons such as missiles. Yet, Israel managed with export versions of U.S. and French fighters. I believe this is yet another rationalization in a series of rationalizations. The simple fact of the matter is that had the Soviet clients been flying the exact same hardware as the Soviet Union used, the results would have been the same. The answer is still the same. Better training, and better tactics.

As to the 650 downed Sabres: Let's see something beyond claims. Let's see some real evidence.

My regards

Widewing

My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
MiG-15 vs F9F Panther: was name this plane (13)
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2001, 12:47:00 AM »
Let's just calmly go down the list.
FIrst off: gun cameras.  Gun cameras won't give you an authoritative record of a kill.  They will show a plane being shot at, and being hit, and if it explodes, well, that's easy.  But we're talking about engagements at altitude, where planes are "spinning and trailing smoke".  A gun camera isn't going to be decisive in even most of the cases.  How many gun cameras show the planes crashing into the ground and exploding?
So it was a "common occurrence" for a kill not to show up on gun camera, and the wingman would have to confirm it.  I have one case here of James Hagerstrom getting separated from his wingman, and Royal Baker, the Wing commander telling him that he "was not going to get a confirmation unless he had good film".   "About that time,  the crew chief, who was putting hte chocks under the airplane, sed, 'Colonel, let me show you this,' and there was a chunk of MiG-15 wedged in the leading edge of the airplane.  Baker looked up and replied: 'I'll confirm it'"

Second: overclaiming.
A. The AVG (not even an arm of the US military) may have had a record against Japan in WWII, but the analogy is very thin.

B. Let's talk about the "Straw Man" fallacy.  You claim my argument is that 650 sabres were indeed lost.  That's false, so your whole counterargument is invalid.
My argument is that there is a plausible explanation for "underreporting" by the

C. While you're at it, take out the references to serial numbers, as we'd like to hold both sides by the same criteria.  Can you list the serial numbers of all 792 MiG-15s allegedly shot down by F-86s?  The closest I've seen to anybody trying to reconcile the two accounts is  http://members.nbci.com/zampini/Korea/MiGsoverKorea.htm   (and he provides more gun camera shots than you or I do)

D. and E.  Now we are getting silly indeed.  The UN numbers contaminate the USAF's record, but non-USSR pilots are valid testimonials to the quality of Soviet fighter jockeys?

First off, the overall US losses officially attributed to enemy fire are around 1400 aircraft, and overall well above 2000.  And I have no doubt most of these losses were to AAA.  Even if you buy the kill claims of all the communist units, the majority of planes were still lost to AAA.
Second, the UN was the force in Korea, and most of the non-US military was integrated into the US command.
Third, the UN did fly the Sabre in Korea.  THat's what the USAF was representing.  If you mean exclusively the USAF flew the Sabre in Korea, you're wrong there too.  The 2nd Sq. SAAF was equipped with sabres at the time the 18th F/B Wing (to which they were attached) converted from F-51s to F-86s, sometime around January 1953.