Sabre vs MiG

That depends upon one's point of view, I think. I daresay that those going up against the Soviet equipment don't mind it a bit when it fails!

 

Since none of us have ever flown the saber or the Mig-15 (I presumed), we can only rely on what we read in books or saw on T.V. to form our own opinions. I am sure most sources of information are inherently biased, including kill ratios, "expert testimonies", etc.

From all the sources I have looked into, I have tried to compare the two planes head on, regardless of their killling ratio

1. Firepower: Even, perhaps slight edge for the Saber
Mig-15 has more devastating 30mm cannons, but it has limited range and has slow rate of fire; The Sabre's 6x 50cal MG, although less destructive, has higher cyclic firing rate, longer range, and also has the advantage of radar gun sight which increased the probability of hit. It's just like the comparison of battleships, no matter how big the guns are, it's useless if you can't hit your target.

2. Maneuability/performance: even
It sounds ridiculous that the much larger and heavier Sabre was just as agile as the Mig-15, but it wasn't exaggerated. Sure the Mig was lighter and thus possess quick rate of climb and acceleration, but the Saber was one of the first plane ever to incorporate the forward slabs on his swept wing (Mig-15 does not) which greatly inreased its maneurability at close quarters, the Sabre's more rigid structure (especially the wings) and the fact that the American pilots had G-suits meant the plane can probably pull more G's than the Mig. The Mig can fly at 50,000 feet whereas the heavy Saber probably tops out at 35,000, this meant that the Russians can dictate when and where to attack the Sabres below, it also mean they will probably have the the initial advantage of speed and angles of attack.

3. Survivability: Even, perhaps slight edge to Sabre
Although more Migs were shot down, the Mig-15's simple yet rugged design (tyipical Russian) allowed it to absorb brutal punishments and still remain aloft, and this was reported in many Russian and Korean pilots accounts. The same is also true for the sabre. Again, remember that during Korean war, the G-suit was not available to the Russian pilots, although that was not the fault of the Mig-15 itself. compared to the Mig-15, the Sabre also has better visibility for its pilot. Even some of the greatest pilots in WWI or WWII fell victims to unseen enemies.


The debate of killing ratios aside, the 2 planes appeared to be fairy even, with perhaps a slight edge favoring the Sabre

 

Liang - excellent post!

I would agree that in a dogfight, both planes have advantages & disadvantages, and are theoretically about even.

However, the high-altitude advantage of the MiG *should* it a huge edge - most pilots who were shot down never saw their attacker. Boom & zoom is a very effective tactic...

 

True enough, if the pilot has the training and skill to do it properly.

 

They had a program on the "Discovery Channel" about that : 700 MIG's were destroyed, F-86 Sabres were destroyed , the MIG was designed to take out bombers , not fighters ( The mig had 2 slow firing cannons , but the F-86 had 6machine guns) overall, the only advantage the MIG had was the rate of climb.

 

Actually the MiG had three cannon: a slow-firing 37mm N-37 and two faster-firing 23mm NR-23. Against fighters, they would have done better to drop the 37mm in favour of another pair of 23mm - it would then have been quite formidably armed compared with the Sabre.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

Definitely. Although getting hit by the six .50s a Sabre carried was no laughing matter, either.

 

I don´t know how much the MiG-15 pilots laughed when they were hit by the Sabre´s six .50s, but I´ve read several accounts where American pilots tell how they emptied their guns into the MiGs and still saw them fly home. I believe a 4 x 20mm cannon armament was tested during the Korean War because the standard six-gun armament was found to be inadequate.

 

Correct: Project GunVal saw two different 20mm cannon tested in action in Sabres towards the end of the war. The tests were successful and resulted in 20mm cannon being adopted for USAF fighters thereafter (the USN had already made the changeover).

TW

 

well , the MIG could take such a beating because flying at high altitudes, prevented their planes from catching fire .

 

WE know for a fact that the kill ratio was almost 10:1 in the americans favour , but you know how the russians understate their losses , the ratio could be more. they know the ratio is a t least 10 to 1 because ... do i really need to explain this ? You should know how they tally up overall losses .

 

i remember that there was an incident or a battle where ROC sabres vs Mig 15s over some island...can someone confirm it?

 

I would hesitate to use the word 'fact' in any discussions on kill ratios.
How can you prove that every kill awarded was actually a kill?

Yes, the Sabre did kill more MiGs than MiGs killed Sabres. No question.
That was down to pilot quality, mostly.

With 'equal pilots', my money goes to the MiG15 - especially if it is an early model Sabre!

 

Making the change sooner would have helped...

 

The F-86A was, indeed, a piece of junk. As for pilot quality, there are simply too many factors that can determine the outcome of a dogfight to say that the MiG *would* win; even a superior pilot can make a mistake, after all, or have his plane pick that moment to develop a serious mechanical fault.

 

You're absolutely right Skua...the MIg 15 (and the sabre) rank among the most aestethically pleasing aircraft. ver. Roel! you are busted tp Private! .. Get your helmet and gear.. and get ready for a five-mile run!

To counter the MIG 15s over Korea, the USAf countered by detaching tha batch of North American F-86As to that theather of operactions. By September 1951 the Red Chinese AF had 1255 aircraft oier Korea of which 525 were Mig 15s. THE USAF only had 8 fighter wings with a toal of 125 Sabres. During the Sabre vs. Mig fights, the Sabre intially the Sabre was creditted with downing Migs at the ratio of 13-to-1. Although these reports were rather exagerated , as a result of several pilots claiming the same kill, which is a rather natural mistake, which reoccurs in air wars over and over, the true ratio of kills was 7 to-1 , Nevertheless, the performance of the Sabre was truly impressive. Out of 960 enemy aircraft destryed during the war, 792 were Mig 15s, while the Migs themselves only shot down a total of 14 Sabre jets. The 4th Fighter Interceptor Grou, known as "The Mig Killers" included some of the first jet aces in the world, with such pilots as Mayor James Jabara (14,1/2 kills) ,although the top Sabre jet aceo ver Korea was Captain .Joseph McConnell Jr, who shot down hist first Mig on 14 Jan. 1953 and in less than a month had destroyed another five. McDonnell becaome the first "Triple Ace" on Korea with 15 confirmed kills. The MIG had the advantage of being able to operate at greater altitude than the Sabre, as it t reached 50,000 ft ( 15.244 meters) with ease, while the Sabre's max. altitude was only 42,000 ft (12,804 m). In level flight both aircraft exceeded speeds of 650 mph. The MIG had a better climb rate, but the Sabre was more maneuvrable. The MIG's better climb rate offset its poor diving capabilities and enabled pilots to choose when to engage orbreak off in combat, since they could escape to their sanctuaries in Manchuria, a forbidden to USAF aircraft by orders from above. The MIG's armament ( 2 x 23 mm and 1 x 37 mm cannon) as far more powerful than the Sabre's but the vibrations caused by these heavy guns made the MIG a poor firing platform.The Sabre carried a sextet of Browning .50 caliber mgs and had more reliable and acurate gun sight than its oponent. My opinion? the Sabre hands down over the MIG. :smok:

 

[quote="corpcasselbury] As for pilot quality, there are simply too many factors that can determine the outcome of a dogfight to say that the MiG *would* win; even a superior pilot can make a mistake, after all, or have his plane pick that moment to develop a serious mechanical fault.[/quote]
Maybe I should have put:
"All other things being equal"
As if that sort of situation ever actually exists...

 

Maybe I should have put:
"All other things being equal"
As if that sort of situation ever actually exists...

A good way to explain it would be "If you were a gambling man which would you put your money on?".

A well handled Gloster Gladiator can tackle a Bf109 and win, but all other things being equal I'd put my money on the Messerschmitt pilot...

 

The MiG-15 was very bad on pilot situational awareness as it had excessive window framing blocking view especially to the rear. Post war studies showed superior SA to be one of the main reasons why inferior (on paper) Sabre beat MiG-15.

The view got better on MiG-15bis but never to the same extend as in F-86A.

 

The Sabre did have exceptionally good SA, IIRC no plane until the F-16 had equally good vision for the pilot.