MIG vs SABRE

[Hobilar]

Oddly enough the Chinese and North Koreans had by far the most advanced Jet fighter to see action in the Korean War. The appearance of the Russian built MIG 15 came as a complete surprise to the Americans who had been using elderly World War II aircraft for their air operations. Hurriedly a wing of the new P86A Sabre Jet fighter had to be rushed out to the Korean theatre to counter the threat that the MIG represented. The MIG however proved to have a considerably faster rate of climb than the Sabre, and could operate at a greater altitude than its American counterpart.

In addition the MIG was armed with cannon rather than the machine guns in the Sabre. 1,500 machine gun bullets sometimes being fired to bring down a MIG, whilst only a few cannon shells could inflict considerable damage on the high flying B29 Superfortresses that the Americans were using for their bombing raids.

Regrettably the MIG also proved to be quite difficult to fly. Except for some Russian, Czech and Polish volunteer pilots using tactics learnt from the Luftwaffe during WWII the inexperienced Chinese and Korean pilots proved no match for veteran US aces who had learnt the art of dog-fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific only a few years before. The MIG also had a tendency to go into a spin from which their pilots were rarely able to pull out from, and therefore were forced to eject.

Despite a loss rate of 10 to 1, by the time of the cease-fire the Communists had nearly 1,000 MIG-15s operational compared with only just over 250 US Sabres some of which were equipped as Fighter-Bombers.

[ppopsie]

It is. The Mig-15 was equipped with a license built Rolls Royce Nene and its Russian variants. That is one of the most interesting feature of the superb machine of the age. What would happen if the Ki-61 had a RR Merlin?

[FLYBOYJ]

The 10 to 1 kill ratio is a myth. There were exaggerations of claims on both sides which probably brought that ratio down to maybe 5 or 4 to 1 if you include Korean, Soviet and Chinese pilots. Against the Soviets it could be less than 2 to 1 depending who you believe.

Both aircraft were built similar, technicially the F-86 was way more advanced however the simplicity of the Mig-15 made it a good "peasant's fighter." Although the UTI trainer version was made to address the aircraft's handling characteristics, it could still be a difficult aircraft to fly, especially if you got it slow on landing where it tended to "snake."

[drgondog]

[quote=Hobilar;287889]

The MIG however proved to have a considerably faster rate of climb than the Sabre, and could operate at a greater altitude than its American counterpart.

In addition the MIG was armed with cannon rather than the machine guns in the Sabre. 1,500 machine gun bullets sometimes being fired to bring down a MIG, whilst only a few cannon shells could inflict considerable damage on the high flying B29 Superfortresses that the Americans were using for their bombing raids.

The pilots that flew both have said the following - 1.) MiG faster and steeper climb rate, 2.) MiG slightly higher (but higher) ceiling and until the E came into Korea was slightly more manueverable in turn... 3.) more effective high altitude armament - usually one of those can work for you.

The F-86, particularly the 86E, had much better gunsights with the Sperry radar ranging/computing capability, had slightly better turn , better cockpit visibility, range, diving speed and control.

USAF finally learned their lesson on advantage of 20mm over 50 cal for high altitude air combat... F-86 was last 50 cal gunfighter.
QUOTE]

They were both the greatest dogfighters of their day and given equal pilot skill, would triumph over the other if given tactical advantage,

[FLYBOYJ]

Whats funny if you took a Mig-15 and T-33 (F-80) and took their tails off and examined the engine bays they look identical. Imagine that!

[Jank]

On the issue of the ue of .50 cal., keep in mind that the .50 was finally judged insufficient even with all six guns packed into the nose and with the cyclic rate having increased from about 700rpm to over 1,000rpm through the employment of the M3 instead of the M2.

The distances were far greater, the time you had the target in your sights was far less and these new aircraft were built considerably tougher in order to withstand higher speed and G force.

[Aggie08]

Indeed. I'm surprised that they were built with .50's in the first place as we had started to use 20mm in several other aircraft, like the Corsair. I heard that you could feel the MiG's cannon fire in your Sabre's pedals because of the huge blast each shot created.

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Whats funny if you took a Mig-15 and T-33 (F-80) and took their tails off and examined the engine bays they look identical. Imagine that!

I could see that do to the fact that alot of info came from the Germans...

[FLYBOYJ]

Also keep in mind that the .50 used by the F-86 in Korea were using incendiary rounds in many cases

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Haztoys

I could see that do to the fact that alot of info came from the Germans...

I actually think its because some Ruskie had a chance to see a P-80 undergoing an engine change somewhere. I don't thing the entire structure was copies, just the basis of the engine installation configuration.

[Jank]

I believe API (Armor Piercing Incindiary) became standard use in WWII.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

On the issue of the ue of .50 cal., keep in mind that the .50 was finally judged insufficient even with all six guns packed into the nose and with the cyclic rate having increased from about 700rpm to over 1,000rpm through the employment of the M3 instead of the M2.

The distances were far greater, the time you had the target in your sights was far less and these new aircraft were built considerably tougher in order to withstand higher speed and G force.

Jank all your points are true - but the primary reason that spun from most of the conversations I heard were inability to create fire and blast at 35,000-45,000 feet to to lack of oxygen to sustain them. Nobody seemed disappointed at lower altitude performance.

When we (family) came back from Japan in dec 1950 to Eglin AFB the USAF was seriously looking at 15mm w/explosive and api.. I still have a few..easy conversion from M2 with basically a barrel/chamber change (necked up .50 cal) but at the end of the day went 20mm in 1951 for all new programs. Even the F-89A had 6 x20mm before all rocket..

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Hobilar

1. Except for some Russian, Czech and Polish volunteer pilots using tactics learnt from the Luftwaffe during WWII the inexperienced Chinese and Korean pilots proved no match for veteran US aces
2. Despite a loss rate of 10 to 1

1. *That* has elements of myth. The MiG opposition in Korea from Nov 1 1950 (when they first appeared) until September 1951 was almost entirely composed of regular fighter units of the Soviet AF's. A few Chinese units fought in the winter of 50-51 but not in numbers till Sep '51, first NK unit November '51. Not until 1953 were a majority of the MiG's non-Soviet AF. This is voluminously documented in declassified Soviet records and books based on them; and there's no mention of any Czechs, Poles, etc. There are combats in pre Sept 1951 where the opposition is described as either 'honcho's', 'bandit trains' of inexperienced presumably Chinese/NK pilots led by a few 'honcho's', or all inexperienced, where you can see in Soviet accounts it's the same Soviet units, even the same *guys, by name*, called honcho's in one case, inexperienced in another. Perceptions in combat are tricky. But from fall of 1951 this perception came true, Soviet, Chinese and eventually NK MiG-15 units were in the same air space, experienced and inexperienced, though they generally did not fly intermingled with one another.

2. That's not a 'myth', it's just the ratio between credited US victories and official US air combat losses. It's the same situation we encounter with many or most WWII combat results still quoted. It's not always possible to know the actual losses on both sides. But in Korea it's pretty well known overall, 319 Soviet AF MiG-15's lost in air combat (best documented number IMO among several in the same ballpark), 224 PLAAF (their official number, combat only), and probably at least several dozen, but not likely more than a 100, NK, say 50. 78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage. Not all but the great majority of those MiG losses were to F-86's. So the Sabre:MiG ratio was ~6+:1 in reality overall, *less* of a discount than would need to be applied to most US WWII ratio's of credited victories to official losses.

One can estimate it separately v the Soviets and Chinese/NK's based on proportion of claims against F-86's (it comes out around 5:1 and 11:1 respectively if you assume all MiG claims were equally [not very] accurate). But that's somewhat artificial IMO. The US pilots didn't know their opposition in detail (things incorrectly assumed about the MiG pilots at the time are still repeated now, see point 1), so could hardly 'ignore the Chinese and NK's and focus on the Soviets'. If you saw a MiG flying in a straight line, that's the one you were going to go after (as in Gabreski's comment to that effect after one of his Korean victories).

Joe

[ppopsie]

Originally Posted by JoeB

1. 2. That's not a 'myth', it's just the ratio between

One thing I would like to point out is that for the communist's air defence not only the F-86 Sabres but also other UN airplanes must have been very important target.

Naturally the scores craimed by the Soviet pilots include F-80s, F-84s, F-51s and even some F-94s.

This superb link helped my understanding on the air part of the conflict greatly.

KORWALD Date of Loss Report

[FLYBOYJ]

Great info guys...

Joe B - you state "78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage." Ever consider the same train of thought from US combat reports of "damaged" Migs? How many Migs made it to their Manchurian homes just to be scrapped? That could change the "ratio" but as discussed previously an exact count of this is an "elusive enigma."

To me if the pilot makes it back to base but his aircraft is a write off I wouldn't give that credit to the opposition - my opinion...