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

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Miguel A

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.

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