Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Sabre vs MiG

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by me262 phpbb3, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    That last name should read Gerd Barkhorn, not Erick Barkhom. And it's true, the major reason so many German pilots racked up such impressive scores is that they flew combat for years. Most of the big scorers flew on the Eastern Front, against the not overly well trained Soviet pilots.
     
  2. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Again I think the Battle of Britain came into play. With a base so close the allied air forces were able to inflict serious loses on the Luftwaffe spoiling Hitlers plans. Now i am not saying that the RAF was fantastic, but mearly the courage shown by them and the failure of Nazi Germany to capitlise upon the (although unknown) weakened state of the RAF, due to Hitlers wish for revenge.

    This again shows the importance of this battle. IMHO
     
  3. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    still hartmann manage to kill severals mustang in the last days of WW II.
    sorry for the wrong name :oops: my bad
     
  4. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    It's safe to say that due to the shortage of fuel, few if any new German fighter pilots received adequate training. Thus by the end of the war, the skills of an average German pilot is definitely inferior to that of the British, Americans, and dare I say, gulp, perhaps even the Russians.
     
  5. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, but that was Hartmann, who was as skilled and experienced a flyer as anyone the Luftwaffe had left at that point in the war. Most of the incredibly high scoring aces of the Luftwaffe flew exclusively against the Russians. I read where one such ace flew against the RAF before Barbarossa, then went to Russia for awhile (acquiring some bad habits, as he put it), came back up against the British and was promptly shot down by the RAF. There was quite a bit of difference between the air wars on the Western and Eastern Fronts.
     
  6. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    At last, the story about the Corsair and the MiG. Capt. Jesse Folmar, flying with VMA-312 ( USMC ), who shot down a MiG-15, and was shot down by another MiG-15 on the same day, on 10 September 1952, tells the story in his own words as printed in Wings of Fame Volume 3 ( "Fighter Combat Over Korea Part 3, a Year of MiGs" by Warren Thompson ) :

    "On this particular day, my wingman Lieutenant Daniels and myself were scheduled to fly a strike mission. At 16.10 hours we launched to hit a target consisting of 300 North Korean troops located four miles from Chinampo, which was on the south side of the Taedong River. As we crossed over into unfriendly territory, we began executing a tactical weave at 10,000 ft. Upon arrival over our target we observed no activity, so we continued to fly recoinnasance in the vicinity of the Taejon Estuary. As we started a bank to weave over a small island off the coast, I caught a glimpse of two MiG-15s that were in the early stages of making a run at us. They were in loose section at the time.

    "I steepened my bank, turning sharply into the MiGs and at the same time increased power, jettisoned all external ordnance and fuel tanks, and switched to the guard channel to report that we were attacked by MiGs. I told Daniels to fly a tighter weave and not to let the MiGs out of his sight. In a matter of seconds, I saw two more MiGs closing very rapidly from my 8 o'clock position. I turned hard to the left and tried to get my guns to bear on them before they opened fire but, due to their rapid closing speed, I was unable to do so. Their tracers were overshooting us, so I reversed my bank to the right and turned inside one of the MiGs as he was starting a climbing left turn. I pulled up, got him in my gunsight and gave him about 20 mils lead and held a five-second burst with my 20-mm cannon. I could tell that I had him boresighted by the blinking flashes along the left side of the fuselage. A grey trail of fuel vapour began to stream from his aircraft and it quickly turned into billowing black smoke. The MiG nosed over slightly and seemed to lose acceleration. Seconds later the pilot ejected, and as he tumbled through the air he appeared as a tumbling ball of smoke. When his parachute opened, I colud see his g suit burning from head to foot. I glanced down and saw the flaming MiG hit the water in a vertical position.

    "Lieutenant Daniels and I resumed our weave, and shortly thereafter I saw four more MiG-15s in addition to the original four. They were strung out in a loose column of two sections. Seeing the increased odds against us, I decided that it would be better to break it off. I transmitted "Break hard left down" and made a diving turn to the left. I had just picked up good diving speed when I saw balls of tracer rounds passing on my and at the same instant felt a severe explosion in my left wing. Immediately, the left wing began to shudder as if in a high-speed stall. I glanced over and saw that the left aileron and 4 ft of my left wing were gone. Also, the top of the left wing was gutted to the inboard side of my inboard gun. My damaged Corsair also tried to roll left, although the stick was placed in a full right position. This led to my decision that it would be too hazardous to to attempt a landing on the carrier, so I decided to bail out. I transmitted the SAR distress signal and repeated my position prior to leaving the aircraft. As I finished my radio transmission, another MiG made a firing pass on me, but missed.

    "At about 3,000 ft, I rolled out the right side of the cockpit and fell clear. As I pulled the parachute D-ring, I heard an ear-splitting cracking sound. I looked around and saw a MiG come by me and his guns werefiring at my spinning Corsair. By my quick count, there were still seven MiGs in the area. Fortunately, they departed and I hit the water about a quarter of a mile southeast of a small island. Lieutenant Daniels flew over and circled my position, and the "Dumbo" arrived and rescued me whitin eight minutes."
     
  7. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Cool! Thank you, Skua! :D
     
  8. Sarco

    Sarco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    according to..

    Soviet sources, kill ratio was 3:1 in favor of soviets in dogfights alone, not other way around. Since there was not a single MiG shot down over American controlled territory (to prevent capture of technology and russian pilots), American pilots could write any numbers they wanted to and feel happy about it. There was literally no way to check. Soviets also claimed complete superiority in air to air combat and explained their losses with poorly trained and not used to G's Chinese pilots.

    MiG-15 was by far better exactly because of better climb ratio and higher altitude. MiG pilots used to climb above and wait for American pilots to arrive and then shoot them down. I remember seeing kill ratios of American and Russian pilots, I am afraid Top Gun movie grossly exaggregated advantage of American fighters. If you are familiar with aerial combat tactics, well it was literally impossible to catch up with climbing MiG and there was no way to get away from one on your tail. Speaks for itself.

    Look up MiG alley and Black Tuesday on search.

    I think 10:1 ratio in favor of Americans originated from Tom Cruise and movie Top Gun. Once again, American sources cannot possibly be verified on kills because not a single MiG was ever shot on American side (they were prohibited to cross it). Soviet sources claim verified 3:1 kill ratio (i.e. photo of enemy aircraft actually hitting the ground). 10:1 ratio to me personally sound rediculous, good for patriotic movie but honestly, whos gonna buy it?
     
  9. Sarco

    Sarco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
  10. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: according to..

    If you read the 4th posting on the first page, you will see that the Sabre is probably a slightly superior fighter than the Mig-15. Of course, it is just a matter of opinion.
     
  11. Sarco

    Sarco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    ehh..

    Iang or is it Liang? I read your post. #1 reason you named for your opinion of Saber's superiority is that 10:1 kill ratio out of Top Gun movie.

    Since no MiG's were shot down over territory controlled by Americans how do you verify that kill ratio? By stories of American pilots?

    Once again, Soviet sources give 3:1 kill ratio in their favor and they could actually go and dig thru the rubble of the planes they shot down.

    Sounds like you bought into American propaganda.
     
  12. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    When did Soviet propaganda become more reliable than American propaganda ?

    The 10:1 kill ratio in favour of the Americans is based on all arial kills and losses involving all types of aircraft used in the conflict, not just the Sabre and the MiG-15. American pilots did well against the MiG-15 in inferiour aircraft types as the F-80 and the F-84 as well, probably because they simply were better pilots. I wont argue which plane is the better of the Sabre and the MiG-15, but the kill ratio was well in favour of the Sabre. Although not as much as 10:1.

    American pilots could not claim as many kills as they wanted. Some overclaiming is allways present but the 10:1 ratio is based on U.S.A.F. records after the Korean War, not the actual claims made during the war.
     
  13. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
     
  14. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I've been here before...

    Try:

    http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/to ... TOPIC_ID=7

    It is the 'Best Fighter' topic, and starts off at about page 21.
    It gives a good & detailed discussion (with sources from both sides used!) which is delivered by guys who know as much about these planes as Danyel does about the Sherman.

    Consensus - Both sides over-exaggerated. Kill ratio is in favour of the Americans overall, as the Chinese pilots they were facing were less well trained / less experienced. Total Soviet claims outstrip actual number of Sabres sent to Korea. Total US claims are similarly 'out there'!
     
  15. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    but you also remember that many soviets pilots served iin korea and they spoke in korean or chinese to avoid recognicion from the americans, still the americans kicked their butts
     
  16. Sarco

    Sarco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ehh..

    How about them WMD's in Iraq?

    The totals for destroyed aircraft mean absolutely nothing, since N.Korea and China used a lot of simply out dated biplanes that were shot with gunfire from the ground. Movie Top Gun where 10:1 ratio was actually introduces cites precisely 10:1 in dogfights (hence the reason to create Top Gun).

    No, I do not trust soviet propaganda. However, there was absolutely no soviet propaganda related to Korean war. Reason being that Soviet Union did not participate in it. Offically anyways, hence there was no reason for propaganda. The actual kill ratios were in internal use and were released after 1995, so you can hardly call them propaganda. More like actual estimates.
     
  17. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    If Sarco is discussing combat purely between American pilots and 'volunteers' from the USSR, then he may have a point. Or he may not!
    Only one side knew which MiGs were piloted by these volunteer pilots, and operating on one set of data is always risky. Simply because as far as I'm aware there has never been a combat claim that was not an over-estimate!
    The 'Russian' pilots would have been a cut above the Chinese/North Korean pilots (better trained, more used to the MiG-15, and a sprinkling of WW2 vets as well).

    Yes, I know about the system they had for counting actual kills, but it was not foolproof.
    Basically, if a piece of plane with some kind of ID (serial number, etc) on was found, it was counted as a kill.
    Two pieces of a plane, with different numbers (say, the engine number, the part number, the plane's code...) = 2 dead planes!
     
  18. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Precisely, Ricky. It's always been hard to figure out actual kills in aerial combat, and even with today's visual systems it will likely always remain an inexact science. Assuming that there is air to air combat ever again.
     
  19. Sarco

    Sarco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Hence was my argument..

    those were actually points of my argument :(

    1. Total number of shot down MiG's could not be proved or even correctly estimated since no "pieces" of MiG's could ever be recovered on American held territory.

    2. 10:1 dogfight ratio a la Top Gun just got shrunk to 10:1 total counting WWI biplanes and is absolutely irrelevant to MiG vs Saber debate.

    3. Soviet data was supposedly classified and kept for their own reference. I am not sure but why would soviet military leaders lie to themselves in such case?

    My point is what MiG was superior because of better climb ratio and could just fly higher. If you cant outfly a Saber on horizontals, just climb up and run off? Sounds simple enough to me.
     
  20. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The MiG did have advantages over the Sabre. That is undeniable.
    The Sabre had a few advantages over the MiG, also. These include such cosmetic items as a much better view for the pilot, radar gunsights, and so on.
    There were, I think, some performance advantages too, but I cannot remember them off the top of my head.

    What it comes down to is that, given equal pilots, the MiG would *probably* win more often than the Sabre.

    In Korea the pilots were not equal!
    And it is hard - even if we fully rely on Soviet sources - to correctly work out the kill ratio for 'Russian' piloted MiGs vs. Sabres.
    I would hazard the guess that it was quite close...

    This is rather a theme for post-WW2 'Russian' military equipment - in theory it should do well against Western weaponry, but in practice it tends to be used by less well-trained troops, and therefore lose, often quite heavily.

    It's a shame, in a way.
     

Share This Page