Korean war

[BasileII]

Who really won it? Usually, we would say the ONU coalition won, as the original North Korean attack was repulsed and the war finally ended in a tie.

But could we really say that a war between USA and its allies against North Korea and China (and possibly some Soviet material help. But, as in Vietnam, not that much) which ends with a tie is a victory for USA?

[Farnan]

Who really won it? Usually, we would say the ONU coalition won, as the original North Korean attack was repulsed and the war finally ended in a tie.

But could we really say that a war between USA and its allies against North Korea and China (and possibly some Soviet material help. But, as in Vietnam, not that much) which ends with a tie is a victory for USA?

One it was UN vs. China/North Korea/Soviet Air Force (it was released a few years ago the North Korean Air Force had Soviet "Volunteers"...)

But it was a stalemate as said before. Though since the UN objectives were obtained and the North Koreans failed their objective the UN was successful in its mission and won.

[BasileII]

A stalemate against such a pathetic force cannot be seen a such a victory. China was exhausted by 20 years of continuous war (civil and against the Japaneses), Russia didn't provide anything else than planes and some pilots (not in such great amount) and North Korea... is North Korea.

[Farnan]

A stalemate against such a pathetic force cannot be seen a such a victory. China was exhausted by 20 years of continuous war (civil and against the Japaneses), Russia didn't provide anything else than planes and some pilots (not in such great amount) and North Korea... is North Korea.

Well in 1950 North Korea was the good part of Korea, and had a better trained army than South Korea, and the Chinese were experts at infiltration tactics. But who won a conflict is not decided by things such as who had the better military its by who achieved their objective...

The UN achieved theirs (South existing) but the North Koreans failed theirs (annex the South).

[Mangalore]

Well in 1950 North Korea was the good part of Korea, and had a better trained army than South Korea, and the Chinese were experts at infiltration tactics. But who won a conflict is not decided by things such as who had the better military its by who achieved their objective...

The UN achieved theirs (South existing) but the North Koreans failed theirs (annex the South).

Though China's intervention was about the rescue of the communist North and primarily the return to status quo ante (though if they had been able to drive the US completely out they would have done that, just like the US did try more than save South Korea).

The Koreans lost badly in casualties on both sides and the involved great powers only wasted ressources to realize that a change of the status quo on the peninsula would mean all out war.

Actually trusting Soviet and Chinese numbers the US still had an at least killed 3 Migs for every 1 Sabre lost.

Though if you count all aircraft, the Migs did their job which was hunting bombers first. Other than it seems pretty difficult to get a clean answer on what combat victories actually happened on either side.

[Farnan]

Though China's intervention was about the rescue of the communist North and primarily the return to status quo ante (though if they had been able to drive the US completely out they would have done that, just like the US did try more than save South Korea).

The Koreans lost badly in casualties on both sides and the involved great powers only wasted ressources to realize that a change of the status quo on the peninsula would mean all out war.

So everyone but North Korea achieved their objectives. And the North Koreans were the real losers, having to live under Kim.

Though if you count all aircraft, the Migs did their job which was hunting bombers first. Other than it seems pretty difficult to get a clean answer on what combat victories actually happened on either side.

That is what makes it so hard.

[bushbush]

everyone achieved their objective except the north koreans, basically.

[Rodina38]

The Russians had some really interesting roles in the war - they completely obliterated American pilots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnZs0...=TL&playnext=1

[Markas]

The Russians had some really interesting roles in the war - they completely obliterated American pilots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnZs0...=TL&playnext=1

Thanks to us! Go Britain!

...

[Yorkshireman]

Thanks to us! Go Britain!

...

Wily Russians and their dastardly, spongey soled shoes.

[Markas]

Wily Russians and their dastardly, spongey soled shoes.

The British sense of fair play- if you have an advantage make sure the enemy is given it!

Serves us right for voting Winny out.

[Boyar Son]

Thanks to us! Go Britain!

...

As if you had anything to do with it. Go britain! back to your island.

[Yorkshireman]

As if you had anything to do with it. Go britain! back to your island.

Perhaps you should have watched the Youtube vid to know what he's talking about, then you would'nt make comments which have no meaning.

[Markas]

As if you had anything to do with it. Go britain! back to your island.

Excuse me? We had 'nothing to do' with the Mig-15?

[Boyar Son]

Excuse me? We had 'nothing to do' with the Mig-15?

i meant you.

or any other fanboy here. GO russia !! korea strong !! what the did any of you do in the korean war to personally be proud of?

[Rodina38]

Excuse me? We had 'nothing to do' with the Mig-15?

Stop taking the credit - the Russians built the MiG-15 from scratch considering innovative designs, it was nothing but a Russian aircraft.

[Gelgoog]

The Russians had some really interesting roles in the war - they completely obliterated American pilots.

the russians were good pilots, but they were not better then american pilots if statistics show us anything. 10:1 odds and such.

[Farnan]

The Russians had some really interesting roles in the war - they completely obliterated American pilots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnZs0...=TL&playnext=1

Actually trusting Soviet and Chinese numbers the US still had an at least killed 3 Migs for every 1 Sabre lost.

[Gelgoog]

Actually trusting Soviet and Chinese numbers the US still had an at least killed 3 Migs for every 1 Sabre lost.

the chinese and soviets boost their numbers by considering all planes downed. Migs mainly went after B-29 bombers and ground attack fighters. Where as F-86 sabres mainly went after migs. Hence if we are going to compare fighter pilots in the mig vs sabre debate it returns to the 10:1 odds in favor of the US.

[Rodina38]

Actually trusting Soviet and Chinese numbers the US still had an at least killed 3 Migs for every 1 Sabre lost.

Consider the inferior quality and timed training of Chinese and North Korean pilots when competing with a Superpower in an air conflict. All I'm saying that 30 Russian pilots managed to destroy over 200 American aircraft during the war which is an incredible feat. North Korean pilots lacked any combat or even advanced training experience, it was not that the F-80 series are any better than the MiG-15s. In fact, the USA introduced the F-86 because the F-80 was getting beaten and even then the Mig-15 could out turn, out climb and fly higher than the F-86!In my opinion, kill ratios is the stupidest method of comparing two aircraft.