Here´s a lovely story!

[racinglad 0]

I bumped into this webpage and got me thinking. It reminds me of the 15:1 kill ratio story over North Korea claimed by the U.S. Later Soviet archives proved this wasn´t the case.

 

What do you make of this?

http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id11.html

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Very interesting, indeed!

 

This man stress an important point: where does truth lies?

What's sure is that we won't know the very truth about some air campaigns for a long time. Nowadays, among french air historian, the kill ration and number of kills of the Armée de l'Air in 1940 is still debated, with figures ranges from 600 to more than 1200.

Events by far more recent and by far still very political are not quite prone to truth too.

I'm quite sure surprises await historians in the study of 1982 war or of the Falkland campaign (I'm just reading a 100pages + special issue of a french air history mag on the Falkland war, and it seems that some argentine claims and strange brit losses should be studied).

Let's remind the kosovo war: Serbian forces were supposed to have been destroyed, according to governments and military spokesmen. When the campaign was over, they were not able to hide the images of hundreds of Serbian tanks rolling back to Belgrade. Nowaday, it's quite common in specialized publications to have reports and studies lessening the effectiviness of NATO strikes.

 

As for this MiG 23 issue. I've heard before, and in divergent sources, of the victories in South Africa and the Soviet ones against Pakistan's F-16. I'm quite sure they are true. For 1982 onward, due to the heavily propaganda loaded atmosphere surrounding these conflicts, I don't know. Can we trust Israelis reports, who have an interest in keeping the uber-army reputation? Or baathist Syria who is not the last to use propaganda?

Wait and see, and as did officers in the last wars, just divide the claimed kills by four!

[Nesher 628]

very lovely story indeed... lolol

i read about the Syrian and i can't help but laughing :)

1-1 ratio with F-15's and F-16's? Syrian v. Israeli pilots...? yeah.. right! :D

[MigBuster 2,884]

I bumped into this webpage and got me thinking. It reminds me of the 15:1 kill ratio story over North Korea claimed by the U.S. Later Soviet archives proved this wasn´t the case.

 

What do you make of this?

 

 

The greatest work of fiction since the dossier on Iraqi WMDs

[column5 63]

Kids, this is what happens when you do drugs. Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

What's sure is that Syrian got totaly owned in this campaign. By the way, even if the article's claims are doubtfull, the "lots of kills to none" may not be totally truthful too. No lucky shot? No lucky MiG? It's quite possible.

It's also possible that some losses had been presented as SAM kills for some propaganda issue.

But the fact is indeed that Israel shall be more easily believed than Syria, for obvious reasons.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Emp_Palpatine

[Fubar512 1,350]

You have to remember that most of these countries will spare no effort in showing photographs of downed aircraft to bolster their propaganda campaigns (curiously akin to the character traits of individuals suffering from delusional disorders).

 

That being said, where's all the photographs of downed F-86s in China & North Korea, to back up those claims? And, where's the missing pilots? Didn't they have relatives who'd inquire about them if they went missing? Also, where's the pics of all the downed Israeli F-15s and F-16s in Lebanon & Syria?

[column5 63]

Also, where's the pics of all the downed Israeli F-15s and F-16s in Lebanon & Syria?

 

Word. If those planes had been shot down there would be pictures plastered everywhere.

[Nesher 628]

Fubar... they have the (so called) F-4 canopy so you can believe them... for sure :D

i think they baught the canopy of an actual F-4, threw it somewhere and said : "hey, we shot down Israeli plane!

we rock!#!@!"

Edited July 12, 2008 by Nesher

[racinglad 0]

Well, show us the pics of captured Russian pilots and downed MiG´s in the Korean campaign?

 

I haven´t seen any and if you know where to find them let me know ´cause it might inspire to a scale kit project hehe.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Well, show us the pics of captured Russian pilots and downed MiG´s in the Korean campaign?

 

I haven´t seen any and if you know where to find them let me know ´cause it might inspire to a scale kit project hehe.

 

Look up "Korean War Gun Camera Footage", or better yet, spend the money and watch the commies fall on DVD:

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/.../guncamera.html

[gosquidgo 0]

The F-4 was most likely downed by a SAM, in 1972, the US sent many replacement F-4E's to Isreal to replace losses from SAMs.

[gosquidgo 0]

Oh and another thing, I had read somewhere that the MIG-23's wing box wasn't stressed for high-g manuevers. The aircraft was designed originally as an interceptor and was never intended to dogfight. The capture of the Mig by the Israelis confirmed this. The aircraft captured was a MLD model so more than likely the wing box wasn't strengthened in the later models either. The aircraft's strengths were it's high acceleration and decent (for the time) radar compared to other fighters of its era such as the early F-4s. I would find it unlikely that it could even hang with an F-4E in turning capability at speed.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Well, show us the pics of captured Russian pilots and downed MiG´s in the Korean campaign?

 

I haven´t seen any and if you know where to find them let me know ´cause it might inspire to a scale kit project hehe.

 

Most of the Migs were engaged over North Korea from what ive read - intercepting UN bombers and in fact Mig Alley is near the North Korean / Chinese Border - so if they ejected they stood a good chance of landing their side of the DMZ.

 

It is said that for obvious political reasons communist bloc pilots seldom ventured over UN held territory - so they wouldnt be captured and start WW3 etc - Im pretty sure Russia has admited to sending its pilots to fight over N Korea btw

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Most of the Migs were engaged over North Korea from what ive read - intercepting UN bombers and in fact Mig Alley is near the North Korean / Chinese Border - so if they ejected they stood a good chance of landing their side of the DMZ.

 

It is said that for obvious political reasons communist bloc pilots seldom ventured over UN held territory - so they wouldnt be captured and start WW3 etc - Im pretty sure Russia has admited to sending its pilots to fight over N Korea btw

Not at the time, but you're right: red planes only engaged above North Korea (and even not above the North Korean territorial waters) because some were strangely blonde and blue-eyed for asian people. And strange accent from Moscow too...

[eraser_tr 29]

Right, I'll believe the syrians claim that they shot down 3 F-15s in air to air combat. According to everyone else, its never been defeated by another aircraft. SAMs yes, migs no.

[+Typhoid 231]

kill records are always tough to reliably determine. In the middle of a swirling dogfight the best report by the most honest pilot is subject to significant misinterpretations of events which are then magnified through the debriefing process.

 

With the exception of some obvious propaganda efforts by various dictatorial regimes of questionable veracity, most accounts by professional forces have tried to be close. but its tough.

 

an example from the WWII Battle of the Atlantic when our ASW aircraft would bomb U-boats caught on the surface which promptly "sank".

 

needless to say the reports of sunken U-boats by aircrew were somewhat at variance with the German Naval records.

 

so such efforts towards confirmation of kills has been an ongoing and difficult effort.

 

now - any account by a dicatorial regime that engages in overt propaganda and support to terrorist organizations is obviously suspect. Syria does not exactly rank high on the scale of truthfulness.

[column5 63]

Add to that the fact that the Russians are desperately trying to reassert themselves, and that seems to be leading to some revisionist history.

[racinglad 0]

Well the story about the combat history of the MiG-23 came from Russia, not Syria. Obviously if the Russians felt that the MiG-23 fell short of expectation then they would simply keep quiet and brag about the MiG-29 or Su-27 instead. If it performed well them obviously they want the world to know about it.

 

This claim was made in a time period where the MiG-23 was already obsolete and out of the market. So this is what makes the hamster turn that wheel faster inside my head. Why brag about an aircraft that was a failure?

[MigBuster 2,884]

Heres an interesting read by Alexander Mladenov (Oct 2003) on the Mig-23 (have got the PDF of the original article somewhere)

 

http://www.xairforces.com/analyses/mig-23.html

[Fubar512 1,350]

In his book "Fulcrum", Alexander Zuyev states that the MiG-23 was a pig to fly, with poor visibility from the cockpit, and often faulty electronics.

 

He also stated that (despite its variable sweep wings), the MiG-23 did not have the low speed maneuverability that was expected of it.

 

He cited one embarrassing example of this, that took place while the '23 prototype was performing a demonstration of its (supposed) ability to operate from small airfields, in front of an assembled group of Red Air Force and Politburo brass. The pilot making the attempt decided that the only way the '23 could land and stop within the required distance, was if he deployed its braking 'chute while the MiG's main mounts were still several feet above the tarmac. He tried it, resulting in the MiG blowing its tires on contact with the runway, badly damaging its undercarriage. Despite this, one bureaucrat was overheard saying that the MiG would "make a fine carrier aircraft"

 

He went on to say that the MiG-29, though, was another matter...

 

Here's a link to a review of his book at SimHQ: http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_213a.html

[Caesar 305]

Yeah, didn't we also find out the MiG-23 couldn't turn/fight worth a damn without departing during Constant Peg?

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2007/0407peg.asp

[+Typhoid 231]

Yeah, didn't we also find out the MiG-23 couldn't turn/fight worth a damn without departing during Constant Peg?

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2007/0407peg.asp

 

 

yup.

 

I wouldn't call it a failure. It was roughly comparable to the Phantom although with some significant limitations uncovered by the Constant Peg effort. (When I sat in the cockpit it was my impression that the last plane I would want to fly into combat would be the Mig-23)

 

combat performance tended to validate that, but remember that unlike most of the other Migs that came out, the Flogger was introduced after the Phantom and faced for the most part the next generation of fighters and was therefore signficantly outclassed.

[JediMaster 451]

The main thing about the Flogger was how high-maintenance it was compared to the 21 and earlier jets. The 3rd world countries that were often given the planes found them difficult to keep in combat shape as a result. That's why the 21s are still around and getting upgraded more than the 23s.

 

Didn't really matter how good the plane was when it was sitting in a hangar!

[+Typhoid 231]

The main thing about the Flogger was how high-maintenance it was compared to the 21 and earlier jets. The 3rd world countries that were often given the planes found them difficult to keep in combat shape as a result. That's why the 21s are still around and getting upgraded more than the 23s.

 

Didn't really matter how good the plane was when it was sitting in a hangar!

 

that is very, very true!!

 

in EUCOM back then, we faced roughly a thousand Floggers. But we understood that number meant that a couple hundred might actually get into the air. In that respect I would have to change my earlier comment and agree that in large measure the Flogger was an operational failure.