Korean War kill ratio

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

AreaRule

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2014, 15:38
  • Location: Brunswick, GA

Unread post26 Sep 2015, 01:19

What do you guys think of the "modification" of the F-86 to MiG-15 kill ratio as stated in this paragraph lifted from Wikipedia? Think it's legit? Or the workings of the liberal, revisionist, anti-Amurican, academic mind? I mean, our gubiment would never fudge the facts, would they?

I might could see it against the Soviet, WWII veterans, but not the NK and Chi-com's. Their poor flying/fighting skills were well-known.

"By the end of hostilities, F-86 pilots were credited with shooting down 792 MiGs for a loss of only 78 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10:1.[33] More recent research by Dorr, Lake and Thompson has claimed the actual ratio is closer to 2:1.[34] The Soviets claimed to have downed over 600 Sabres,[35] together with the Chinese claims, although these are thought by some to be an overcount as they cannot be reconciled with the 78 Sabres recorded as lost by the US.[36] A recent RAND report[37] made reference to "recent scholarship" of F-86 v MiG-15 combat over Korea and concluded that the actual kill:loss ratio for the F-86 was 1.8:1 overall, and likely closer to 1.3:1 against MiGs flown by Soviet pilots. Of the 41 American pilots who earned the designation of ace during the Korean war, all but one flew the F-86 Sabre, the exception being a Navy Vought F4U Corsair night fighter pilot."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7723
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post26 Sep 2015, 03:37

How would that claim be reconciled vs actual gun camera footage?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post26 Sep 2015, 17:25

Even gun camera might not tell the whole story


Six machine guns gave a tremendous rate of fire, but it was weak weapon. It did not guarantee a kill even if a hit was achieved. There were cases when pilots brought home over 90 holes; one even managed to belly land with over 100 hits! Plane was later repaired and pilot was still alive and not seriously harmed.
Which one was better? Our armament with increased load… But they had a better gunsight. My ideal plane would be MiG-15Bis with increased ammo load, with the wings and the gunsight from the Sabre.



http://www.airforce.ru/history/cold_war ... er5_en.htm


Stick the kill ratio in the middle of those figures and be done with it 8)
Offline

AreaRule

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2014, 15:38
  • Location: Brunswick, GA

Unread post26 Sep 2015, 19:51

Lookieloo, why do you think Ima troll? Because I dared to take a trip in the wayback machine instead of repeating the F-16/-18/-22/-35, Su-27/-30/-34/-35/Pak Fa, MiG-25/-29/-31 debate about capabilities/it's-the-bestest-airplane-in-the-whole-world mantra ad nauseum?

I put the question out there because some folks in this audience have far more knowledge on these issues than me, with the hope of learning something on the subject by having a different perspective than mine add clarity. All it took was one person (basher) to provide a thoughtful, cogent response that made perfect sense and added insight to my understanding of the subject.

Thanks bash.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7723
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post26 Sep 2015, 21:18

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post27 Sep 2015, 22:14

AreaRule wrote:What do you guys think of the "modification" of the F-86 to MiG-15 kill ratio as stated in this paragraph lifted from Wikipedia? Think it's legit? Or the workings of the liberal, revisionist, anti-Amurican, academic mind? I mean, our gubiment would never fudge the facts, would they?

I might could see it against the Soviet, WWII veterans, but not the NK and Chi-com's. Their poor flying/fighting skills were well-known.

"By the end of hostilities, F-86 pilots were credited with shooting down 792 MiGs for a loss of only 78 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10:1.[33] More recent research by Dorr, Lake and Thompson has claimed the actual ratio is closer to 2:1.[34] The Soviets claimed to have downed over 600 Sabres,[35] together with the Chinese claims, although these are thought by some to be an overcount as they cannot be reconciled with the 78 Sabres recorded as lost by the US.[36] A recent RAND report[37] made reference to "recent scholarship" of F-86 v MiG-15 combat over Korea and concluded that the actual kill:loss ratio for the F-86 was 1.8:1 overall, and likely closer to 1.3:1 against MiGs flown by Soviet pilots. Of the 41 American pilots who earned the designation of ace during the Korean war, all but one flew the F-86 Sabre, the exception being a Navy Vought F4U Corsair night fighter pilot."


First, IMHO all 'Dorr' 'scholarship' is usually about small 'h' history and is always suspect. The 'Dorr, Lake and Thompson' 2005 book is a typical British 'militaria' picture book and relies on questionable sources that came available at the end of the Cold War. the 'recent RAND study' in the Wiki entry isn't even a study, but the link leads to the execrable and infamous 'Can't Run Can't Turn' PowerPoint by John Stillion that RAND disavowed MOST forcefully. The references for the historical exchange rate figures in the PowerPoint weren't provided at the time, but they seemed to have remerged in Stillion's latest and still sophomoric "Trends in Air Combat" out of CSBA. The references provided there for the exchange rate data were lifted from a non-vetted source (website) and run through a 'Stillion Secret Sauce' filter that we are not privy to, so I'd call those figures 'double-suspect' until proven otherwise.

Discrepancies between US claimed Korean War kills and actuals can be explained almost completely by unintentioanally optimistic camera film interpretation or third party confirmation in error. Soviet/NoKo claims above actual F-86 losses reported can be explained AWAY almost exclusively by counting the heads of surviving F-86 pilots and their airframes.

Comparing exchange rates across different conflicts past present and future is the aeronautical equivalent of body counts and just as meaningless. Having said that, and knowing some will still do the math anyway for whatever reason, IMIO there are three MOST important factors contributing to exchange rates. The first two most important factors are co-equal: Relative quality of weapon systems (note 'systems' are not individual aircraft unless they are unsupported) and operators between combatants. One only becomes more important if the relative values between combatants is far wider for one than the other. The third is the ratio of targets to shooters for each side which either amplify or attenuate the effects of the first two factors. I believe if one insists on looking at Kill Ratios across different conflicts, one will find the highest correlation to Kill Ratio outcomes between different wars with competent opponents IS the ratio of shooters to targets.
And by correlation, I mean if you provide more targets to the other guy, he tends to kill more of you to skew the exchange rate.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests