Great looking plane..

[Widewing]

An aerial victory is the destruction of an enemy plane, regardless of whether the enemy pilot lives, dies, jumps, ditches or crash lands at his home base. AH rules don't apply in the real world.

Nonsense... You can't claim a kill if the plane flies away and returns to base. Damaged? Yes. Then again, Soviets awarded kills if one saw an American and managed to get home alive. Now wait GPutz, we all know that's an exaggeration, so save your angst for the next time you find yourself standing at a urinal in a crowded restroom.

Anyway, compare total documented F-86 losses to Soviet claims for yourself. It's ludicrous. Typical Soviet politics... Produce results or else.. Gun decking the paperwork? Not the Soviets!

[Widewing]

Opposing pilot?

It wasn't Welch... Yeager wouldn't tangle with Welch, certainly not when everyone would be watching. Within the flight test community, Yeager was considered to be a better test pilot than Welch, who lacked the discipline Yeager brought. However, that same community also recognized that Welch was an extremely talented fighter pilot. Welch and Yeager were friends, of a sort. Welch, typical of his over-agressive personality was killed in the break-up of an F-100A during a demonstration flight. That morning, Yeager had advised Welch not to do the Mach 1, 7g+ maneuver on the flight card. Yeager thought that the short-tailed A model was too unstable along its longitudinal axis to push that hard in the upper right hand corner of the envelope. Welch dismissed Yeager's advice as overly cautious and was dead two hours later....

[Butcher]

It wasn't Welch... Yeager wouldn't tangle with Welch, certainly not when everyone would be watching. Within the flight test community, Yeager was considered to be a better test pilot than Welch, who lacked the discipline Yeager brought. However, that same community also recognized that Welch was an extremely talented fighter pilot. Welch and Yeager were friends, of a sort. Welch, typical of his over-agressive personality was killed in the break-up of an F-100A during a demonstration flight. That morning, Yeager had advised Welch not to do the Mach 1, 7g+ maneuver on the flight card. Yeager thought that the short-tailed A model was too unstable along its longitudinal axis to push that hard in the upper right hand corner of the envelope. Welch dismissed Yeager's advice as overly cautious and was dead two hours later....

That's interesting info, thanks!

[GScholz]

When did the USAF standardize the criteria?  During WW2 it was very common for each USAAF group to have their own criteria for what was a "kill".
 
ack-ack

I don't know if it has ever been standardized. The USAF do however consider "maneuver kills" and "fuel kills" for awarding aerial victories. For example on January 17 1991 Captain James Denton and Captain Brent Brandon were acknowledged a kill against an Iraqi Dassault Mirage F1, which they managed to maneuver into the ground, making it the first and only EF-111 to achieve an aerial victory over another aircraft.

[GScholz]

Nonsense... You can't claim a kill if the plane flies away and returns to base. Damaged? Yes. Then again, Soviets awarded kills if one saw an American and managed to get home alive. Now wait GPutz, we all know that's an exaggeration, so save your angst for the next time you find yourself standing at a urinal in a crowded restroom.

Anyway, compare total documented F-86 losses to Soviet claims for yourself. It's ludicrous. Typical Soviet politics... Produce results or else.. Gun decking the paperwork? Not the Soviets!

I see your personal attacks are up to your usual class, toilet references and all. The Soviets probably had guncam footage of a shot up F-86 burning and awarded a victory. The F-86 was surely a write-off after all that battle damage and crash landing; it was a miracle it made it back to base at all. It's all about the loss of the aircraft. If it was repaired and put back into action Sutyagin's claim would be a case of honest overclaiming. In any case I don't think the Soviets much cared what you or any other American/UN thought of their scoring system.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I see your personal attacks are up to your usual class, toilet references and all. The Soviets probably had guncam footage of a shot up F-86 burning and awarded a victory. The F-86 was surely a write-off after all that battle damage and crash landing; it was a miracle it made it back to base at all. It's all about the loss of the aircraft. If it was repaired and put back into action Sutyagin's claim would be a case of honest overclaiming. In any case I don't think the Soviets much cared what you or any other American/UN thought of their scoring system.

If it does not hit the ground out of control, it was not shot down. It was damaged. It was flown to a friendly base and set down on the runway in control of the pilot, who, by the way, walked away uninjured.

Of course the Russians didn't care what anyone else thought about their propaganda policy.

The fact is, despite having every advantage, the Russian hot shot couldn't seal the deal and get the job done. Calling into serious question the other 20 he claimed.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Source:  General Albert Boyd

Opposing pilot:   No idea......he never stepped forward to identify himself.

Pretty much makes the whole thing pointless. There is no way to determine the ability of the pilot, and nothing to brag about.

Sounds a lot like someone trying to pump up Yeager's ego for him, or help him do it himself.

[GScholz]

If it does not hit the ground out of control, it was not shot down. It was damaged. It was flown to a friendly base and set down on the runway in control of the pilot, who, by the way, walked away uninjured.

Is that your personal definition?

"Shot down" is not the only way to achieve an "aerial victory". During the Great War an aerial victory could even include the enemy bowing out, saluting the victor and leaving the battlefield unharmed. And even today an unarmed plane like the EF-111 can score an "aerial victory" without firing a shot. In WWII US and RAF fighters would count ditched enemy aircraft as killed, even if most of them were later recovered and repaired by the Germans; in 1944 even stationary aircraft strafed on the ground were counted as kills, although this practice was later retracted.

After the Korean War communist bloc nations claimed to have destroyed 1,106 UN aircraft in total. The UN claims to have lost 1,466 aircraft to all causes. I don't see any evidence of gross overclaiming by the Reds.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Is that your personal definition?

No, it's pretty much the most widely accepted definition, and has been for years.

See, there are various classifications, such as "damaged", "possible", and "probable". You don't get actual credit for those, you get those classifications. A confirmed victory isn't added to your record, and you don't paint it on your plane, either. Well, at least you don't if you're truly honest.

Of course, you can make all the claims you so desire. I'm sure you will.

I suppose the Russian hot shot can be forgiven for his mistaken claim. After all, since the planes he was accustomed to flying would not withstand the damage he felt he inflicted on the F-86, he probably figured he'd scored a victory. He probably also figured that since he wasn't good enough to fly a cripple home, his opponent wasn't either. Besides, he was too busy trying to save his own hide to see whether or not his enemy crashed, so all he had was an assumption.

Then again, he obviously felt he needed to finish that F-86, but wasn't able to because he was too busy trying to keep his hide intact, so maybe he did know he didn't score a verified victory, but decided to claim it anyway.

[GScholz]

See, there are various classifications, such as "damaged", "possible", and "probable". You don't get actual credit for those, you get those classifications. A confirmed victory isn't added to your record, and you don't paint it on your plane, either. Well, at least you don't if you're truly honest.

So those are US classifications? You see other nations don't play by those rules. The RAF share victories if more than one pilot is involved. The Russians did so too, and in some units victories were only awarded to the squadron, not the individual. The Luftwaffe only gave a kill to one pilot; if there were more than one pilot involved and they couldn't work out who got the kill they awarded the victory to the Staffeln and no individual pilot got it. You can no more expect the Soviets to adhere to your scoring system than they can expect you to adhere to theirs.

[icepac]

Pretty much makes the whole thing pointless. There is no way to determine the ability of the pilot, and nothing to brag about.

Sounds a lot like someone trying to pump up Yeager's ego for him, or help him do it himself.

The point is that a good pilot in a mig could overwhelm a f86.

It happened.

Get over it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The point is that a good pilot in a mig could overwhelm a f86.

It happened.

Get over it.

Who said it couldn't?

Get over yourself.

The whole thing is pointless when you can't even produce any sort of identification of the opposing pilot. At that point, it is completely impossible to determine the competency of the opposition. The entire story proves absolutely nothing. You can't even provide proof that the opposition was not some green kid fresh out of flight school.

What you said is about the same thing as saying that Ali put on blue trunks and gloves, beat some no name kid in the local boxing gym wearing red trunks and gloves, then put on the red trunks, gave the kid the blue trunks, and beat him again. Stunning.  

[icepac]

Since you are determined to ignore data from a guy who flew both planes, then I feel it is your job to find out the person's name.

HINT:   He was a current F86 Lt. Col. who flew combat missions vs the mig in korea.

How bad could have he been.

From your posting on this thread, I feel you have a petty axe to grind vs yeager and this is what is making it impossible to believe.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

It happened.

Since you are determined to ignore data from a guy who flew both planes, then I feel it is your job to find out the  person's name.


Personally, I feel you have an axe to grind vs yeager and this is what is clouding your judgement.

You did not bring "data". What you did is provide an unsubstantiated and incomplete anecdote, completely void of supporting evidence. There is no "data" to ignore. You have none.

You feel it is my job to verify your story? Seriously? You bring completely unverified drivel to the discussion, and then demand someone else prove it did not happen?  

Again, bring your source, verified, and the name of the opposing pilot, or it simply did not happen and does not mean anything.

[icepac]

LOL......I already know how this will end and I figured you would quietly backpedal.........but it seems you have trouble believing the truth as recorded by the people who were there.