"Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

[Nikitn]

Here's an interesting article I read just now: http://acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html,, Interesting how so many people here claim the US would rape the Soviets on the basis of US performance against developing countries fielding 3rd-rate militaries and some outdated 2nd-hand Soviet equipment, but forget to mention the one time regular American troops actually fought regular Soviet ones

'During the time that the "Honchos" (the nickname given by the Sabre pilots to excellent MiG pilots) were in Korea, between April 1951 and January 1952, they shot down or damaged beyond repair 142 UN aircraft against 68 losses, an overall 2:1 kill ratio. Their most successful month was October 1951, when the Soviet MiG-15s bagged 7 F-86s, 6 F-84Es, 2 RF-80As and one F-80C, one Meteor and 10 B-29As -24 victories- and suffered only 8 MiGs lost.'

Now, I'm not jabbing the US military or anything. The UN air-force was actually at a disadvantage in NK due to having to protect bombers, and the distractions of Chinese and NK pilots. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the gung-ho crap certain American fanatics have posted in this forum during the past years.

[motiv-8]

Planes far superior to the straight-wing F-84 and F-80, better in several categories than the original F-86, being flown by combat-experienced pilots.. I'm sorry, what's the shocker?

Then again in 1953 the F-84F was introduced which eliminated all the advantages of the MiG-15, but I guess the Soviets had gotten bored by then. The F-86 finished up Korea with a kill advantage over the MiG-15 of at about 2:1, perhaps higher, or perhaps a little lower, and RAND Corporation estimated advantage over Soviet pilots at 1.3:1, which sounds about right for forces composed overwhelmingly of well-trained and highly experienced pilots flying roughly matched planes.

You might also look at the Taiwan Straights Crisis in the late 50s and the '65 Indo-Pakistan War as examples of the technology being pitted against each other without either Soviet or American pilots being directly involved -- the F-86 dominated the MiG-15 (and thanks to Sidewinder missiles the MiG-17 as well) in both.

Well, in any case I hope you feel better having scored a shot against your straw opponent.

[Turtler]

Here's an interesting article I read just now: http://acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html,, Interesting how so many people here claim the US would rape the Soviets on the basis of US performance against developing countries fielding 3rd-rate militaries and some outdated 2nd-hand Soviet equipment, but forget to mention the one time regular American troops actually fought regular Soviet ones

'During the time that the "Honchos" (the nickname given by the Sabre pilots to excellent MiG pilots) were in Korea, between April 1951 and January 1952, they shot down or damaged beyond repair 142 UN aircraft against 68 losses, an overall 2:1 kill ratio. Their most successful month was October 1951, when the Soviet MiG-15s bagged 7 F-86s, 6 F-84Es, 2 RF-80As and one F-80C, one Meteor and 10 B-29As -24 victories- and suffered only 8 MiGs lost.'

Now, I'm not jabbing the US military or anything. The UN air-force was actually at a disadvantage in NK due to having to protect bombers, and the distractions of Chinese and NK pilots. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the gung-ho crap certain American fanatics have posted in this forum during the past years.

I agree overall, but there are a few things worth noting in addition to the bombers.

1. The North Korean task force from the VVS didn't exactly scour their ranks for the horrendous failures. These were some of the very best fighter pilots history has ever seen, often against a far less uniformly good UN/Western Allied force (it's pretty much said that they mainly succeeded in destroying the North Korean air force in the opening weeks/months of the war due to an overwhelming superiority in training, tech, and *numbers*, and that a huge chunk of their pilots were quite inexperienced). So while it's pretty safe to say the overall Western Allied commitment to Korea in terms of air quality was representative, the Soviet pilots were culled from amongst the best of the best.

And more importantly,

2. Attrition. A 2:1 kill ratio is impressive, but it's worth

A: puttingup against the overall air power fielded by the different forces involved. In particular, counting only the Soviet VVS advisers would be akin to counting only the performance of...say... Marines in Chosin as representative of the whole., or the Luftwaffe's "Super Aces." The actual kill ratio factoring in Chinese and North Korean aircraft was hardly as favorable to the Communists, and like we touched upon in the other thread regarding the Battle of Britain, the West could and did easily outproduce planes and pilots in comparison to those lost., and even more importantly could out train and out-research them. Which brings me to the next pooint...

B: It didn't last that long. As motiv pointed out, the Western Allies out-teched the Soviets soon after in this case, bringing it back down to an even less favorable rate of exchange for the Communists.

If worst came to worst, the Western Allied air forces would simply have to out-attire the VVS and affiliated forces. Certainly not a curb stomp or something that could be done on a weekend, but still ultimately not something the Communist bloc was equipped to win at all.

This isn't to knock the VVS or the Soviet Aces as a whole, or the capabilities of the Communist Bloc air forces. Their skill is testament enough, but the Luftwaffe's "Super Aces" couldn't turn the tide against superior Allied industrial power, and in a West vs. East showdown the Soviets would've probably found themselves in similar straits to their old adversaries.

Again, have to concur with motiv. It's a great find and good read (and a handy reminder of what good pilots could accomplish against superior numbers), but not that decisive in overturning the idea of Western Allied advantages in the air.

[Col. Tartleton]

American pilots rightfully feared the Russian pilots at times. At other times the Russian pilots feared the American pilots for good reason.

I'd say an American pilot was on average slightly better than a Russian pilot and over the course of the entire war the Russian planes were generally inferior. However they were in the same league.

The US doesn't want to face modern Russian air power either. We'd win, I think that's obvious, but no one wants to fight a fair fight. It's stupid.

The air war of the 50s-60s would have been massive. The cost of failure was strategic atom bombing. Once strategic missiles became an option the air war changed.

[Nikitn]

Planes far superior to the straight-wing F-84 and F-80, better in several categories than the original F-86, being flown by combat-experienced pilots.. I'm sorry, what's the shocker?

The "shocker" is how the US was beaten when for once fighting an equal opponent.

The F-86 finished up Korea with a kill advantage over the MiG-15 of at about 2:1,

This includes NK and Chinese pilots?

and RAND Corporation estimated advantage over Soviet pilots at 1.3:1, which sounds about right for forces composed overwhelmingly of well-trained and highly experienced pilots flying roughly matched planes.

Does this include engagements were the Migs were primarily attacking bombers, with escorts being a 2nd priority?

You might also look at the Taiwan Straights Crisis in the late 50s and the '65 Indo-Pakistan War as examples of the technology being pitted against each other without either Soviet or American pilots being directly involved -- the F-86 dominated the MiG-15 (and thanks to Sidewinder missiles the MiG-17 as well) in both.

And in later wars the roles reversed. What's your point? That better equipped third-world countries beat worse equipped third-world countries?

Well, in any case I hope you feel better having scored a shot against your straw opponent.

I am merely an observer who find people bragging about the combat-histories of F-15s and the like quite amusing

[Turtler]

The "shocker" is how the US was beaten when actually fighting an equal opponent.

Except it wasn't, as you yourself pointed out. So much for the hopes of scholarly discussion?

This includes NK and Chinese pilots?

Yes, it did.

perhaps higher, or perhaps a little lower, Does this include engagements were the Migs were primarily attacking bombers, with escorts being a 2nd priority?

Yes, it did. I must also assume it included the rare occasions where MiGs were escorting VIPs or otherwise handicapped like the others were for the bombers. If this is somehow supposed to find an "extenuating circumstance" or a reason for it, it doesn't work.

And in later wars the roles reversed. What's your point? That better equipped third-world countries beat worse equipped third-world countries?

Which ones were those? India-Pakistan are the only ones that come to mind.

I am merely an observer who find people bragging about the combat-histories of F-15s and the like quite amusing

If you were merely an observer, the extremely partisan tone and use of straw would not be present. The fact of the matter alone is that motiv was right. The fact that the pre-tech up stats were so close given the discrepencies in training and equipment between the VVS advisers in their MiGs and the Western Allies is something. The fact that the post-tech up stats were also pretty close is saying something else so it's not like the Soviet pilots were idiots. Just that you hardly get a free pass in saying LOLUSFAIL. Which in spite of your disclaimer on the first post is exactly what you're doing now.

Shame, because I actually would've up repped you for the first post, believe it or not (bias aside). Now I guess I can be glad I didn't.

[Adar]

The "shocker" is how the US was beaten when actually fighting an equal opponent.
I am merely an observer who find people bragging about the combat-histories of F-15s and the like quite amusing

The F-15 was deployed 23 years after the Korean war. But it would be a very good arguement against anyone arguing for the superiority of a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star in in the Korean war.

But the article is quite interesting and show the value of the WW2 aces sent by the Soviet Union.

Summarizing, the Russian aces dominated the struggle for air superiority over "MiG Alley" in the April 1951-January 1952 period, and earned the respect of their Americans adversaries (the nicknames "Honcho" and "Casey Jones"). From February 1952, when the crack pilots of the 303rd and 324th IAD were largely replaced by rookies, the Sabre pilots ruled over "MiG Alley," and the well-trained US pilots kept the edge until the end of the war. It during this later phase that the tallies of the greatest US Aces -Joseph McConnell, James Jabara and Manuel Fernández Jr. - began to rise quickly. But even then, there were Russian MiG-15 pilots who proved to be dangerous adversaries, like Nikolai Ivanov and Semen Fedorets.

[DarkArk]

Their most successful month was October 1951, when the Soviet MiG-15s bagged 7 F-86s, 6 F-84Es, 2 RF-80As and one F-80C, one Meteor and 10 B-29As -24 victories- and suffered only 8 MiGs lost.'

I decided to look up the performance characteristics of those planes since I'm not terribly familiar with post-WWII jets, and it turns out the Mig-15 is quite a bit better against all of those but the F-86 of which the two are almost identical. Factoring in bombers and that the F-80 was obviously not up to the task in Korea (I'd like to see how well Yak-15's would stand up against an F-86), and it doesn't seem to me like this is exceptionally notable considering the experienced Soviet pilots. So I'm not really seeing the point of this thread.

Also it seems to me when people are generally discussing the superiority of American equipment vis-a-vis the Cold War it's usually the later period, which there is a lot more to be said for though I still say people generally underestimate Soviet equipment.

[Mangalore]

There is some smug superiority complex by the West in the past 20 years for sure although there is also some reason to take all conflicts where NATO turned some third world army with Soviet equipment into scrap metal.

I think particularly the Kosovo war is not really the glorious definition of western air power with a landlocked small country with 1970s military equipment. We shot Serbia's infrastructure to bits but post war studies actually found that while Serbia sacrificed its civilian infrastructure it pretty much preserved its military forces throughout the entire war despite complete air supremacy by the west. Their air defense systems remained a threat tying up the majority of sorties 6-7 weeks into the conflict, they moved their heaviest combat brigade into Kosovo under the noses of all this air power.

Overall the only time the west tried to curb stomp another European country it did not quite work and would have turned into a different league of messy because it appears those guys knew what they were doing with the little that they had.

And Serbia still got only inferior equipment to what the Soviets were using because the Soviets usually did not export this stuff until in recent decades when Russia's defense industry needed foreign contracts to survive. So you get Iraqi T-72 at the very least stripped off the targeting and night fighting systems the Soviets used for themselves let alone ammo the Soviets had withdrawn from their arsenals because they knew that these shells would do badly against the next generation of western MBTs.

I'm not really certain about the superiority claim against the Soviet Union in the 80s tech wise. The west certainly had leads in various areas but how big they were is not as cut clear, e.g. by the 80s the Russians used heatseeking missiles which the West found had superior tracking capabilities than the latest Sidewinder.

At least the gap looks closer than comfort.

[Stavroforos]

Because as we all know, history is defined by poorly interpreted anecdotal evidence.

[Nikitn]

The F-15 was deployed 23 years after the Korean war. But it would be a very good arguement against anyone arguing for the superiority of a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star in in the Korean war.

But the article is quite interesting and show the value of the WW2 aces sent by the Soviet Union.

The f15 was naturally just an example.

Stavofors, how did i poorly interprit the source?
I summed it up as when (the one time) USA fought an equal opponent, it got bloodied. I think YOU misinterprited MY post as anti-American as opposed to anti-propaganda.

[Stavroforos]

But it's not an equal opponent. The US in that example had inferior planes and novice pilots while the USSR had better planes than the Americans (in that encounter) and pilots with actual combat experience.

[Nikitn]

No - both the US and the Soviets sent modern planes and veteran pilots (except the Soviets rotated in rookies later when the front stabelized, so the rookies would be trained up). It just so happened the Soviets were more efficient.

And besides, with "equal" I meant both opponents were militarily in the same leauge.

[torongill]

But it's not an equal opponent. The US in that example had inferior planes and novice pilots while the USSR had better planes than the Americans (in that encounter) and pilots with actual combat experience.

"Many of the American pilots were experienced World War II veterans, while the North Koreans and the Chinese lacked combat experience, thus accounting for much of the F-86's success."
that's from the wiki of the Sabre and it references the National Museum of the United States Air Force

Guys like Gabreski, Whistner, Mitchell and Mahurin were definitely not novice. If anything, that's an insult to their memory.

[Adar]

The f15 was naturally just an example.

My objection is that it is an example from the wrong era. It wasn't until the 70s that Soviet started to lag behind the West.

[I WUB PUGS]

I don't really see the point of this thread. And I also don't know if Nikitn has every studied American War Histories in America but the US is far more than generous and respectful of its enemies in the Korean War.

The Mig 15 was feared, the pilots were feared, we got hammered until the F-86 was deployed. This isn't like comparing an F-15 to a Mig-23, it's apples to apples. The Soviets had the lead on us in jet design until the F-86 was fully deployed, this is almost universally understood in the US Military Histories.

The Russians were scared of our bombers. The B-47 couldn't even be touched so they focused on fighters in this period and even later they poured money into short ranged interceptors.

Fact of the matter is in third world conflicts Western equipment has fared better in most conflicts, maybe its just luck, but it doesn't matter and has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Whenever the professional side of the Soviet military went up against counterparts in the west you saw essentially a draw.

Not surprising, but its typical dick waving from all sides. A fight between professionals using comparable equipment comes down to luck and who has the quicker trigger finger. This goes for every facet of warfare. Show me a battalion of conscripts and they'll be chased off by a platoon of professionals.

[Nikitn]

My objection is that it is an example from the wrong era.

how is that relevant? My post was a general answer to US fanboyism.

It wasn't until the 70s that Soviet started to lag behind the West.

Considering "the West" was an entity many times bigger than the Soviets and their allies, it wouldn't be surprising, but actually while they were lagging behind in some areas(computers, for instance) they were also ahead in others (like rocketry).

In addition, the Soviets sometimes having different design philosophies was often confused with "lagging behind" (their subs were faster at the cost of being louder).

[I WUB PUGS]

In addition, the Soviets sometimes having different design philosophies was often confused with "lagging behind" (their subs were faster at the cost of being louder).

True. But you could say the standard multi-role fighters lagged behind which I think Adar was addressing, even their air superiority fighters did. They did however excel in interceptors because they were concerned with the NATO bomber threat.

But too often lagging is attached to something that was really just a different philosophy. The Soviets "lagged" in CAS and attack helicopters. But why did the west develop these assets? Could be because they had 1/10th the tanks the Soviets had?

[Markas]

The Mig-15 was a clear indicator of superior Soviet equipment. It was jolly nice of us to give the Ruskies the engine to run it.

[I WUB PUGS]

Ha! Fancy buying a Mig?

http://www.globalplanesearch.com/aerobatic/jets/mig/

Mig-25 for sale in Ukraine. How cliche.