Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

To JoeB Mr Zampini told me that you helped him to elaborate the ACIG's Air to Air Victories tables about the Korean War. Even being incomplete bacause they only cover the 1950 to 1952 period for US victories, Mr Zampini told me that I must not trust in that tables because they are obsolete nowadays. Unfortunately that's the only first-hand reference I have to know about Korean war A2A results. The other is the KORWALD archive, but Mr Zampini also told me that the KORWALD archive is not complete, and that it does not include some proven US losses. i.e: some P-51(I can review and provide which) I asking you for help direct me to some link to read about this. Thanks.

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Yes those AGIC tables and also article on the Nov 1950-May 1951 period are full of errors, but Mr. Zampini and I probably wouldn't agree in many cases *what* are the errors or in which direction!

There are few total losses of a/c in air combat that weren't listed in KORWALD. But again, my main source of information on US air combat losses in Korea is not KORWALD. It's the original USAF, USN and USMC air records from Korea as a whole. KORWALD comes from the same source, but it's a tiny 'tip of the iceberg' compared to the whole set of information. And AFAIK nobody who promotes the theory of 'much greater US air combat losses than reported' has ever done research in those records themselves. That IMHO is a serious weakness in their argument, to put it mildly.

And that's the first issue to settle, again in my view. What is the basic research method? what are the basic sources a researcher has used?
So as I said, 270 F-86 air combat losses does not come from detailed USAF records, compiled in secret at the time, since declassifed. It's not what those records say, not anywhere close. But the 293 number for MiG's *is* just (AFAIK) a reporting of what one side's records say. I think a very strong explanation is needed as to why one research method is used for one side's losses, and a completely different method for the other side's losses. I think this is the basic issue to address and understand first.

But if you want to see case by case examples of the 'extra US losses' theory v what the records say, see the recent thread on this forum about F-84 air combat losses in Korea.

Joe

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Are they available in the web?

I am on it

Thanks

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Late to the discussion. Just want to add one piece of information. The 231 losses (224 MiGs + 4 TU-2 + 3 La-11) are all combat loss. In addition to that, PLAAF admitted (accidentally) the loss of another 168 aircraft due to non-combat causes in Korean War.

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Bumping this to the top as I enjoy it so much!

Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Mr. Seidov's book, not sure if this is the one being referred to, has been published in English. Red Devils Over the Yalu: A Chronicle of Soviet Aerial Operations in the Korean War 1950-53 by Igor Seidov. Excellent book I highly recommend.

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

In case anyone missed it in another thread:


"Many years after the war, a study by the U.S. Air Force, code named Sabre Measure Charlie, downgraded the F-86 Sabre-versus-MiG-15 “kill ratio” from more than 14 to 1 to a revised figure of 7 to 1. The latter figure remains the best achievement in any fighter campaign in history prior to Operation Desert Storm."


Source: http://www.koreanwar60.com/air-force



Ed

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Well Ed, that sounds pretty close to the 345 Mig Losses recorded by Russian records & the 225 Mig losses reported by the PRC. Naturally I presume the majority of the losses are probably to Sabers & not lower performance jets, prop jobs or B29 bomber gunners.

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Bump.

Re: Korea-MiG-15 and the other side of the history
 

Bumping this thread again.