Soviet aces in Korea sky

Nick if you actually read about tactic of application the USAAF in Korea ( or at least more attentively has read this thread) you shoud learn the main aim of the Migs were the bombers B-29/26 (i.e againt the strategic aviation) and particulary fighters-bombers F-80.
As you maybe know the strategic aviation aim was not the supporting the ground forces but the attack of the Korean airfields , cities, bridges and simply forifed areas. This could be in the interaction with the ground forces but MORE OFTEN ( as it was in the WW2) the Strategic aviation had a own separate goal - to destroy the rear of the enemy.

The Communist air forces were simply a nonfactor. The UN had complete air superiority and conducted air strikes at will, and destroyed the N. Korean air force within’ a few days. So, actually, anything other than losses of piston engined aircraft due to AAA and ground fire would be ridiculous…

The UN forces nothong destroed for the few days endeed.
The Soviet and Korean Mig fly from the Mongolian and China’s airfields during the whole rest of the war.

Actually, the “Russian sources” may be the “bullshit” ones, since there were very few Russians in the War, as Moscow was largely pissed off over the uncoordinated (with them) Chinese intervention to the extent they refused aid to China, only selling them weapons for cash. The Soviet pilots were there to gauge and probe US tactics and to get experience against the US air forces. Nothing more.

Nope, something more;)
The Soviets not just supplied the China/Koreans by the wearpons but also the teach them to use it.
In fact all the China/Korean pilots were grow under the soviet ‘teachers’.
And may be you don’t know but anbout 30 000 of soviet peoples were participating in the different roles ( war experts,advisers and ets) . Do not look like the “very few Russians” , right.

The “black week” was a pin-prick inflicted on obsolete aircraft used as cannon fodder in Korea. And such losses would have been regarded as light in WWII…

Well Nick the whole Korean war is just the “childish play” in the comparition with WW2 right?
BTW is the F-80/84 the obsolete aircraft in the 1950?

Yeah, um, the source you provided has a blinking “lol” on it. And they interestingly use the most favorable “statistics” from both US and USSR “sources.”

And do you have another “statistic”. Would you so kind please;)

We’ll have to call pot-tea kettle on that one!

You can throw any statistics out there that you want. But the facts support the USAF official history, because: as stated twice now, the Communist air forces were virtually of no hindrance to UN air power. Something that has been verified. If the US lost so many Sabres, then why were the vaunted (few) Soviet and supposedly “expert” Chinese pilots (by your assertions) not able to conduct any significant ground attack operations nor provide any sort of adequate air cover to the PLA and DPRK Armies?

The reason is obvious Nick - how could the about 300 “communist” Migs + about 200 of the piston WW2 aircraft to stop the air offencive of the almost 2.5-3 thousands of the UN aircrafts?
The whole the Soviet war industry ( that factically armed the both NKorean and Chinas)was not capable to get the air superiority with the union allies forces.
But the Migs was a great hindrance for the UN.
At least i know for the sure after the “black thusday” the allies command refused the day raids even.

In fact, if the US had not had absolute control of the air from the outset, the UN Armies would have probably been driven into the sea because of the initially poor performance of the US Army. It wasn’t until the Spring of 1951 that the US Army, under the fantastic leadership of Gen. Matthew Ridgeway, was able to stabilize and inflict heavy casualties on the Chinese…

Oh “fantastic leadership” sound so great espesially when you have the 10 times wearpon superiority against the enemy.
Look like the real “partiotism” to infict the Chinas piasants armed only with small namber of rifles and amunition the heavy casualites by the US strongest war mashine in the world?

The USAF received from his pilots 792 claims of migs “killed” in air combat, 20 years after the conflict the USAF high command admited that the actual losses of Mig-15s would the half of the figure and probably less, so the 566 mig lost still seems high to me.

The Soviets seemed to have lagged behind the west technologically in aviation

In wich way ? was the MIG-15 inferior ?

I don’t have time to run around the interweb all day. Anyhoo, we seem to have plenty of problematic figures already…

That’s true Nick but don’t forget not all of the pilots who were shoted down were saved.
Many of then had perished or were captured. I think the total loses of UN/US pilots was over 2000.

Air crews you mean, not necessarily “pilots.”

this is very controversial point.
The ww2 experience just proved the AAA-artillery was not an such effective as you wrote about N/Korea.
BTW Have you a separate statistic of the kills of the N/Koreans AA-gunners?

I don’t agree! Damnit, it’s a beautiful Sunday here, and you’re going to make me pull out my books! :mad:

Perhaps there were 180 Sabres at the any one time but the total quanty of F-86 was

According to a recent U.S. publication, the number of USAF F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war totalled only 674 and the total F-86 losses due to all causes were about 230
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

But as we know another sources called the 224/275 lost Sabres.

Firstly, it’s not a particularly strong Wiki article, even by their standards. And the author admits that Chinese and Soviet claims are “exaggerated.” And I’m not sure that elite Sabre pilots “struggled” anymore against the “elite Soviet pilots” than vice versa…

But only 78-Sabres were lost to air-to-air engagements as far as I’ve found…

And the “few soviet” pilots (1100 indeed pilots that went through the Korean warfor the 3 years according the http://www.airwar.ru/history/aces/acepostwar/pilot/koreaussr.html)
operated about 190 (!!!) of Mig-15 at any one time according to the statistic of the soviet 64 UAK.

That’s true the both aircraft were the best in its time.
The Mig-15 was the perfect “bomber-killer” due to its guns firepower.
The Sabre was the perfect hunter due its better electrical equipment.

On one point we agree. They were both quite remarkable and well matched aircraft. I’ve a soft spot for both actually.

Nevertheless the “few soviet professionals” who shoted down at least 3 times more UN aircrafts then they losed of the own;)
Not bad for the “few” ( more exactly 52 soviet pilot had bacome the aces - they shot down more then 5 enemy aircraft)

There may have been 1100 pilots (or air crews), but they weren’t necessarily flying Migs.

And all you are saying is that you believe the Russian sources over the official USAF sources. Fine. But to say the Soviet pilots shot down three times as many aircraft as they lost may or may not be an exaggeration or a stat taken out of context, and not that laudable if they were shooting down obsolete piston engined fighter aircraft relegated to ground attack roles. Even so, the Soviets lost presumably few aircraft, because the UN lost relatively few aircraft and considered the threat from enemy aircraft to be low and of almost no hindrance to tactical air support.

The 1:11 kill ratio is Sabres Vs Mig is the just the propogandic “fairy tells” that was developed to prove the USA has “absolute won” the air combats . nothing more.

Or that there were few Russian flyers at anyone time, and the N. Korean and Chinese pilots were no match for experienced and well trained USAF and UN pilots.

I’ve heard the ex-Red Air Force pilot claim (this was a very long time ago, so I could be wrong) that Soviet pilots achieved a slightly better than half kill ratio against US and allied jet fighters, maybe 52%-48%, but that was a while ago so I could be wrong…

But US pilots flying Sabres were the elites with much WWII combat experience, and there were never enough Sabres since they were deployed in a North American interceptor role as well…

I don’t know, you decide.

From “The Korean War” by Max Hastings (pages 262-263, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1988, ISDN: 0671-66834-X)

The Australian Meteor squadron, also based there, had a fine reputation, but the Australian pilots were chronically jealous of the Sabre. The Meteor was considered to be an aircraft that could take punishment, but it also possessed a highly vulnerable hydraulic system that could be crippled by a single small-arms round through a leading edge. Heavy on the ailerons, it was hard work to fly from its cramped cockpit. The pressure on the pilots was intense: one British officer flew 114 Meteor sorties in six months, on one occasion five in a day.

Four Sabres sat permanently at readiness on the runway, the Alert Patrol, in case of some sudden report of an enemy takeoff by the radar controllers. The pilots recognized the key role of the controllers in making their scores possible—Low took them a few cases of beer whenever he made a kill. Each flier had pet preferences about his aircraft and his weapons. Some loaded extra tracer in the guns. Many carried solid tracer at the end of their belts to give warning that their 300 rounds were close to exhaustion. Most pilots wore silk scarves, and many affected the old soft leather World War II helmets until they were ordered to change to modern molded designs.

The enthusiasm of the enemy varied greatly from month to month. Sometimes weeks would go by without a UN squadron seeing combat. Then, without warning, the MIGs would embark on a flurry of activity. In a characteristic month—December 1952— the statistics tell the story: 3,997 MIGs were reported seen in the air by UN pilots; attempts were made to engage 1,849; twenty-seven were confirmed destroyed. Enormous effort was expended to achieve modest results in direct damage to the enemy. But much more important, air supremacy over Korea was constantly maintained. Men like Jim Low, with his flamboyant taste for enormous Havana cigars, his growing reputation as a “honcho”—a top pilot—revelled in the struggle. “I enjoyed all of it,” he said later, "the flying, shooting down aircraft. I was too young to think about the politics. It was just a job we were over there to do."9 Each pilot flew around 100 missions, perhaps six months’ combat duty, before being rotated back to the United States. There was, perhaps, less tension among the squadrons in Korea than in World War II because the dominance of the American pilots was so great, their casualties less alarming. Some celebrated pilots were lost: Bud Mahurin, a World War II group commander, was shot down by ground fire; George Davis, one of the most celebrated aces, was brought down by a MIG when his score stood at fourteen victories. But the odds on survival were good. Even those who were lost were scarcely missed when men were coming and going constantly on routine rotations. And as Flight Lieutenant John Nicholls of the RAF, who flew the Sabre with the Americans, put it, “In England after a flying accident, there was a funeral. But in Korea, somebody just wasn’t there anymore.” Jim Low went home after ninety-five missions with five MIGs to his credit, and not a scratch on him. He went on to fly fighters over Vietnam and survive five years in a Communist prison camp. The Sabre remained unchallenged as the outstanding aircraft of the Korean War: of 900 enemy aircraft claimed destroyed during the war by U.S.A.F. pilots, 792 were MIG-15s destroyed by Sabres, for the loss of just seventy-eight of their own aircraft. It was, inevitably, a Sabre pilot who became the war’s top-scoring ace, Captain Joseph McConnell, with sixteen confirmed “victories.”

If at least a proportion of fighter pilots found their occupation glamorous, it is unlikely that any of the heavy bomber crews would have said the same about theirs, flying a dreary daily shuttle to industrial and military targets in North Korea. Joe Hilliard was a twenty-seven-year-old Texas farmboy who just missed World War II and spent his first flying years as a navigator in what was then the U.S.A.F.'s only designated nuclear bomber group. He was newly returned from a tour of duty in England when Korea came, and he was rushed to Okinawa with the 307th Bomb Wing. They met none of the traditional comforts of combat aircrew: the only permanent accommodation on the base was occupied by another wing. They found themselves living in tents, which were razed to the ground at regular intervals by hurricanes. Their B-50 aircraft were taken from them and they were given instead old B-29s, just out of mothballs, which posed chronic problems with mechanical defects: "We were really mad about that. We got the feeling that the U.S.A.F. just didn’t want to waste its first-line equipment on Korea."10 To their disgust, they found that even the flight rations with which they were provided were of World War II manufacture.

cont’d

Well, I’m not sure the North Korean or Chinese forces kept accurate statistics on what they hit…

But here is an idea of what the typical operations and losses were like.

Again, Max Hastings writes
(Battle in the Air pg’s 266-267):

The vast majority of the 1,040,708 aerial sorties flown by UN aircraft in the course of the Korean War were close support, or fighter cover. Their importance was undisputed. But America’s leading airmen persistently urged a more ambitious role for their forces in Korea and chafed at the frustrations of ground support. General Jacob Smart, Far East Air Force’s Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations) for most of 1952, complained bitterly about "the opinion so often expressed or implied, that the Eighth Army is responsible for winning the Korean War, and that the role of the other services is to support it in its effort."13 Here, yet again, was the airmen’s search for a decisive independent role. Yet between June 1951 and the summer of 1952, the U.S. Air Force attempted overwhelmingly its most ambitious independent contribution to the struggle, and suffered the most galling failure.
“Operation Strangle” was a systematic attempt to cut off the Communist The-
…ground forces in the front line from their supplies by the sustained exercise of air power. It began with a campaign of bombing the road network in North Korea, and in August 1951 was extended to the railways. Three quarters of all land-based bomber effort and the entire carrier capability were dedicated to this task. Day after day and night after night, the enemy’s communications were pounded from the air. In a fashion disturbingly reminiscent of World War II, and prescient of Vietnam, air force intelligence officers produced extraordinary graphs and statistics to demonstrate the crushing impact of the campaign on Communist movement. Yet, by the summer of 1952, none of this could mask the reality on the ground: the enemy’s supplies were still getting through—between 1,000 and 2,000 tons a day continued to cross the Yalu at the height of “Strangle,” it was later discovered. Prodigious feats of repair by civilian labor gangs working around the clock kept just enough of the road and rail network open to move food and ammunition. Constantly improving Communist antiaircraft defenses emphasized the eternal conundrum: to bomb low meant accepting unacceptable casualties; to bomb high meant a fatal loss of accuracy. “Strangle” cost the UN air forces 343 aircraft. destroyed and 290 damaged, mostly fighter-bombers. It proved to objective observers such as Ridgway that there was “simply no such thing as choking off supply lines in a country as wild as North Korea.”…“Strangle” was finally abandoned in the summer of 1952 in the face of severe aircraft losses for dubious strategic return. The airmen claimed that the campaign had at least prevented the Communists from building up supplies to mount a major offensive, but most thoughtful observers doubted that this had been the enemy’s intention. The air forces turned instead to a succession of selective attacks upon power plants and dams in North Korea, about whose destruction the Communists were expected to be especially sensitive. Operation “Pressure Pump” was designed to impress upon the Communist delegation at Panmunjom the urgency of signing an armistice. Bomber attack, wrote Bradley as Chief of the JCS in November 1952, “constitutes the most potent means at present available to UNC, of maintaining the degree of military pressure which might impel the Communists to agree, finally, to acceptable armistice terms.” 5 Yet American attacks upon the huge Suiho hydroelectric plant on the Yalu in June 1952 aroused intense controversy around the world, and especially in Britain, where strategic bombing in Korea was a sensitive issue.

And BTW, Englishman Max Hastings is no sycophant of American military power. A good deal of his book is highly critical of the performance of the US ground forces from 1950 to mid-1951…

But they flew at night mostly, so the MIGs were only so effective against them. And as I said, the Korean War was used as a training opportunity by both sides of the Cold War.

And the F-80 was all but removed from the theater as it too was an obsolete, virtually WWII vintage jet.

As you maybe know the strategic aviation aim was not the supporting the ground forces but the attack of the Korean airfields , cities, bridges and simply forifed areas. This could be in the interaction with the ground forces but MORE OFTEN ( as it was in the WW2) the Strategic aviation had a own separate goal - to destroy the rear of the enemy.

And as you’ll see in my scan of Hastings’ book, there were few targets to go after by 1951.

The UN forces nothong destroed for the few days endeed.
The Soviet and Korean Mig fly from the Mongolian and China’s airfields during the whole rest of the war.
Nope, something more;)
The Soviets not just supplied the China/Koreans by the wearpons but also the teach them to use it.

I would hope so!

In fact all the China/Korean pilots were grow under the soviet ‘teachers’.
And may be you don’t know but anbout 30 000 of soviet peoples were participating in the different roles ( war experts,advisers and ets) . Do not look like the “very few Russians” , right.

I don’t dispute that Soviets trained Chinese/DPRK pilots. But they were still largely ineffective…

And so you admit that the Soviets were aiding the aggressor in the conflict?:slight_smile:

Well Nick the whole Korean war is just the “childish play” in the comparition with WW2 right?

Not to the individuals who fought and died in it. But on the terms of scale, it would have been a sideshow in WWII…

BTW is the F-80/84 the obsolete aircraft in the 1950?
And do you have another “statistic”. Would you so kind please;)

The F-80 was ready for field trials at the end of WWII and I think it flew some sorties. It was in fact designed with the ME-262 in mind, and would have been operational for “Operation Downfall” (the invasion of Japan) had it occurred, so yes, it was obsolete by 1950-53, and was a marginal player…

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/p80_shooting_star.htm

The reason is obvious Nick - how could the about 300 “communist” Migs + about 200 of the piston WW2 aircraft to stop the air offencive of the almost 2.5-3 thousands of the UN aircrafts?
The whole the Soviet war industry ( that factically armed the both NKorean and Chinas)was not capable to get the air superiority with the union allies forces.
But the Migs was a great hindrance for the UN.
At least i know for the sure after the “black thusday” the allies command refused the day raids even.

Yes. As I’ve said all along, there were not enough MIGs and competent pilots to really turn the tide.

And you are correct, I believe the USAF switched to nighttime raids…

Oh “fantastic leadership” sound so great espesially when you have the 10 times wearpon superiority against the enemy.
Look like the real “partiotism” to infict the Chinas piasants armed only with small namber of rifles and amunition the heavy casualites by the US strongest war mashine in the world?

Yes, well those Chinese PLA “volunteer” “peasants” also had decades of combat experience and outnumbered UN forces significantly. The US forces suffered from poor training and morale even while pushing the North Koreans back after Inchon.

And you are wrong, the US Army was pitiful compared to it’s strength in 1945. I believe it was reduced from nine-million men to a “trip-wire” force of about 500,000 volunteer soldiers with poor readiness and a reliance on mothballed WWII era weapons. And its troops were poorly trained and led in many circumstances.

As one American Korean War veteran put it, “we went into Korea with a bad Army, and come out with a good one.”

But that’s another thread.