F-86 Sabre and Mig 15 The anticipation is killing me... :)
#32

BadPilot Wrote:"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.

The Migs rate of climb was drastically better at all altitudes. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The ceiling advantage was dramatic against the A model Sabres but the E models closed the gap quite a bit and the F models made the ceiling more or less a wash as both could get up to approximately the same altitude. The "better turn performance" statement is not correct. Below 30K the Sabre could turn or outturn the Mig15's As the altitude increased the roles reversed

BadPilot Wrote: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").

1100-1200 RPM's X 6 Barrels against a target that was unarmored for the most part including the cockpit. Against an armored target it would have fared worse, but against the Mig's it was adequate, but not optimum by any means.

BadPilot Wrote: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

If they hit the Sabre they required relatively few rounds to cause major if not catastrophic damage. But a low rate of fire and 2 calibers firing at different rates AND different trajectories combined with a fairly poor gunsight did not serve the Russian/Chinese/German pilots well at all. Given the massive numerical advantage held by the Russian ilots, and the massive altitude advantage held, why didn't they sweep the Sabres out of the skies?

Russian Mig Losses were approximately 250 +/- a few. The Chinese lost 221 =/- a few The DPRK lost approximately 50 to combat.. 50 more to operational losses (again +/- a few) Approximately 150-200 were claimed and recorded but do not match losses in Soviet records. Sabre combat losses are often listed as 75 or so, but are likely closer to 95-100 in reality based on matching Soviet claims with USAAF losses reported to all causes. There are 20 or so incidents where a Mig claimed a Sabre and the USAAF lists a Sabre lost to another cause (Ground Fire/Engine Failure) and awarding ALL of those claims still keeps the number under 100.

I would not be shocked if several of those "engine failure" kills were honestly reported as such when the Sabre pilots never saw the attacker making a pass from above before diving away and assumed a compressor or turbine catastrophic failure in flight.

PeterD, hurry up with the beta so I can flame this guys Mig! Smile
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)