14.08.2009, 17:39
This warrants a few comments on my part, I think!
"MiG 15 has a better climb rate, higher ceiling and better turn performance. But it is also more spin prone and not very stable at high G's and a terrible weapons platform."
Basically, this is a fair assesment. It will be interesting to see if and how this is implemented in the FMs.
"F-86 has better armament for fighter vs fighter 6 .50 cals vs 2 slow firing heavy cannons designed to shoot down bombers on the MiG. F-86 has better stability in all axis. F-86 has superior gunsight."
While the last two comments are true, the first one definitely is not. The .50 armament of the Sabre was woefully indadequate and obsolete by the early 1950s and Sabre pilots often reported on how they shot many rounds into MiGs, seemingly without effect. For one thing, at the altitudes we speak of here things doesn't burn as easily, and the .50s just didn't have enough punch to be a good fighter weapon at that time. Besides, the Browning M2/3 was a mediocre gun at best. This is not my assessment, look at this page for more info and you'll see my point: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ ... un-pe.html (look at "medium-calibre machineguns").
On the other hand, Korean War MiG-15s carried 3, not two large-calibre guns, 1 37 mm N-37 and 2 23 mm NR-23 guns (except the earliest ones). These had more than enough destructive power and were designed to knock down bombers (which they did very well, halting daylight B-29 operations in Korea), but was less ideal as anti-fighter armamanet, especially as the MiG was a rather poor gun platform and the gun sight not the best. Overall however, the MiG came out best in the armament department, just look at the table at the bottom of this webpage: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ ... un-fk.html
It must also be remembred that gun maintenance on the MiG was vastly superior to that on the Sabre, the entire armament could be easily lowered and replaced very quickly whereas that on the Sabre was difficult to reach and took longer to rearm and change. For those that doubt the MiG OKB were on the right track with their kind of fighter armament and that that of the Sabre was obsolete, just take a look at what subsequent fighters carried - packs of heavy guns of minimum 20 mm calibre!
"Now the 10-1 Kill loss ratio of the F-86 vs Mig 15, It is not disputed and even admited by Russia."
This is simply not true, it is certainly not admitted by the Russians! I was talking about the overall kill rate, at that is not 1:10. It maybe true that the kill ratio agains unexperienced Chinese and Korean pilots could be as high as 13:1, but this is not verfied as far as I have bene able tto find out. On the other hand, the same source states that the Soviet-flown MiGs enjoyed a 2:1 kill ratio over the Sabres. But that the overall kill ratio is not 1:10 is actually now admitted by Western authors. Let me quote from Osprey's Korean War Aces by Dorr et al. (Osprey publishing 1995) which states on page 87:
"An air-to-air kill:loss ratio which appeared to be in the order of 10:1 after the war, now appears closer to 2:1. Of USAF claims recognised at the time, only some were eventually awareded as credits in the aftermath of the war, thus producing a considerable shortfall in the final wartime totals - it has never officially been revealed which claims failed to become credits."
Quite a remarkable statement, don't you think?
"The N. Koreans were new pilots in a new Airforce flying a new technology. They were meat on the table vs American experienced WWII veterans! Russia let a few Russian training pilots help and sent a few more. VS. Veteran Russian pilots there was no 10-1 kill ratio but it has still been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the F-86 came out on top of that fight too."
Again, not true. The Soviets actually sent more than a few "training pilots" to Korea, they sent an entire Coprs; here's a breakdown of units: http://www.korean-war.com/ussrairorderofbattle.html That the Americans came out on top of the fight against the Soviet pilots is also not true.
BadPilot
"MiG 15 has a better climb rate, higher ceiling and better turn performance. But it is also more spin prone and not very stable at high G's and a terrible weapons platform."
Basically, this is a fair assesment. It will be interesting to see if and how this is implemented in the FMs.
"F-86 has better armament for fighter vs fighter 6 .50 cals vs 2 slow firing heavy cannons designed to shoot down bombers on the MiG. F-86 has better stability in all axis. F-86 has superior gunsight."
While the last two comments are true, the first one definitely is not. The .50 armament of the Sabre was woefully indadequate and obsolete by the early 1950s and Sabre pilots often reported on how they shot many rounds into MiGs, seemingly without effect. For one thing, at the altitudes we speak of here things doesn't burn as easily, and the .50s just didn't have enough punch to be a good fighter weapon at that time. Besides, the Browning M2/3 was a mediocre gun at best. This is not my assessment, look at this page for more info and you'll see my point: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ ... un-pe.html (look at "medium-calibre machineguns").
On the other hand, Korean War MiG-15s carried 3, not two large-calibre guns, 1 37 mm N-37 and 2 23 mm NR-23 guns (except the earliest ones). These had more than enough destructive power and were designed to knock down bombers (which they did very well, halting daylight B-29 operations in Korea), but was less ideal as anti-fighter armamanet, especially as the MiG was a rather poor gun platform and the gun sight not the best. Overall however, the MiG came out best in the armament department, just look at the table at the bottom of this webpage: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ ... un-fk.html
It must also be remembred that gun maintenance on the MiG was vastly superior to that on the Sabre, the entire armament could be easily lowered and replaced very quickly whereas that on the Sabre was difficult to reach and took longer to rearm and change. For those that doubt the MiG OKB were on the right track with their kind of fighter armament and that that of the Sabre was obsolete, just take a look at what subsequent fighters carried - packs of heavy guns of minimum 20 mm calibre!
"Now the 10-1 Kill loss ratio of the F-86 vs Mig 15, It is not disputed and even admited by Russia."
This is simply not true, it is certainly not admitted by the Russians! I was talking about the overall kill rate, at that is not 1:10. It maybe true that the kill ratio agains unexperienced Chinese and Korean pilots could be as high as 13:1, but this is not verfied as far as I have bene able tto find out. On the other hand, the same source states that the Soviet-flown MiGs enjoyed a 2:1 kill ratio over the Sabres. But that the overall kill ratio is not 1:10 is actually now admitted by Western authors. Let me quote from Osprey's Korean War Aces by Dorr et al. (Osprey publishing 1995) which states on page 87:
"An air-to-air kill:loss ratio which appeared to be in the order of 10:1 after the war, now appears closer to 2:1. Of USAF claims recognised at the time, only some were eventually awareded as credits in the aftermath of the war, thus producing a considerable shortfall in the final wartime totals - it has never officially been revealed which claims failed to become credits."
Quite a remarkable statement, don't you think?
"The N. Koreans were new pilots in a new Airforce flying a new technology. They were meat on the table vs American experienced WWII veterans! Russia let a few Russian training pilots help and sent a few more. VS. Veteran Russian pilots there was no 10-1 kill ratio but it has still been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the F-86 came out on top of that fight too."
Again, not true. The Soviets actually sent more than a few "training pilots" to Korea, they sent an entire Coprs; here's a breakdown of units: http://www.korean-war.com/ussrairorderofbattle.html That the Americans came out on top of the fight against the Soviet pilots is also not true.
BadPilot
