Has anyone else come across this webpage?

[Heck 496]

http://sabresandmigs.com/index.html

 

I was wondering if anyone else here had come across this webpage. It seems to be done on behalf of Lt. Col. Joseph R Clark, but since he would be 91 years old, obviously someone else might have helped to set it up. Anyone have any other information about this webpage, or the books mentioned? Just curious. There's no contact information at the website, so I can't ask them.

Heck

[Do335 382]

Read some.. I still remember a TV interview with the Chinese ace Zhao baotong. He had 2 F-86 scale models, one painted with the yellow tail, the other painted with the checkered flag. He pointed to the yellow tailed one and said: these guys are harder to deal with. LOL It seems the 51st had some attitude problems!

 

While it is true that the 15bis is much superior to the 86E up high, I think the author could be a little burned by how he was treated by his CO and the general public. It is now known the mig does have buffeting and total aileron control loss approaching the mach. The late model got the automatic air brakes. And while the Sabre could eventually extend in the dive the better t/w ratio of the mig means the latter could easily keep it up initially. I think the mig was so deep in his six that a simple climb or dive couldn't solve the problem if I'm not too arrogant in disputing a RL pilot that is!.................

[+streakeagle 871]

The blog posts have a bitter, condescending tone. Everyone but him must be delusional, a liar, or ignorant. 

I think his assessment of Americans applies equally well to himself: 

 

 

It quickly became obvious to me that our national dedication to, and practice of, those splendid values was far more hypothetical than factual, and that the average American was not only largely ignorant like I was, but was also groundlessly opinionated, selfish, bigoted and hypocritical.

[Heck 496]

I know his tone is bitter, and he has that I'm better than you attitude, but I'd still be interested in reading the books he talks about writing. Reading about this period, you always have to remember that these stories are like fish stories, they get bigger and better over time. I read Robinson Risner's account of chasing a Mig up a dry riverbed, and it changed over time, especially after TV became involved. I'd simply like to hear his story. Every mythology has a basis in fact, and so much Korean Air War history is mythology, on both sides. You just have to cut through the chaff, to get to the wheat. If this man really is who he says he is, I'd like to read his stuff, given his credentials, and the fact that he was involved in the ATIC. I've read other larger than life accounts from this time period, now I'd like to read his.

 

ps. I think I found one of the things that probably set Col. Clark on his path to write these stories. In the Dorr and Thompson book on Korean War Aces he mentions on one of the web pages, Colonel George Jones, the Colonel who dressed him down, recounts an almost identical story of being chased in a dive by a Mig Honcho, only to have the Mig Honcho spin into the mouth of the Yalu while chasing Jones at low level.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Heck

[+Viper63a 667]

I do agree with most of the sentiments expressed in the article, but I have to add something else.
 
I find it interesting that he critizes the process that made him what he claims he is?  God, Easter Bunny Santa Claus, the values of his country, all had an impact on his life. They may not be real, but it shaped him, helped him survive, fed his imagination and taught him valuable life lessons.
 
To put everything into perspective, God, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus endures while Lt. Col. Joe Clark is dead and turned into the the basic chemicals that by "Magic" or "Miracle" (or some unimaginable scientific process that may as well be "Magic" or a "Miracle") caused him to express the words he wrote.
 
So who is the illusion? How is Lt. Col. Joe Clark any different from God, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, now? If anything, God, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus will endure as Lt. Col. Joe Clark is long forgotten.
 
Again, no disrespect to Lt. Col. Joe Clark's memory, but as he said "...that most people found...were uncomfortable with honesty, found truth to be a frangible commodity and unpleasant truths to be so abhorrent that, ostrich-like, rather than face them, they buried their heads in the sands of childish fantasy." As I said, I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in the article, just not this conclusions...
 
=Viper=

Edited June 27, 2015 by viper63a

[Heck 496]

Personally, I don't give a rat's butt about his personal belief system, or his attitude and personality. I know he's abrasive and self-important. Many people are. I'm just interested in what he has to say about the Mig and the Sabre, and the Korean Air War. So, as I said, if anyone can find any more information about the man, or the books he claims to have written, which are apparently not published yet, I'd appreciate it. I can't find any other web site that mentions him when I do a Google search, so I'd like to find more information on him, if any is out there.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Heck

[+streakeagle 871]

I question the value of his opinion on the Sabre vs MiG: other people didn't have his experience, so they must be wrong! It couldn't possibly be that he personally didn't know how to squeeze optimum performance out of the F-86 or that the initial conditions were such that it created the appearance of exceptional performance on the part of the MiG-15bis.

 

In online multiplayer flight sims, there are guys who accuse others of cheating and/or flight models being bogus because what they saw contradicted their understanding of the situation. For instance, in Aces High, there was an extensive post debating the energy retention of the F2A Brewster Buffalo because some guy in a much faster airplane like a P-51D couldn't pull away from the Brewster. Somehow the Brewster magically kept up and remained within firing range. Of course, the game allows recording tracks and people did all kinds of tests: conclusion, the F2A bleeds energy like a stuck pig, as it should. But, if it started with enough of an energy advantage, it could easily accomplish what was observed by the angry pilot.

 

This is why anecdotal information from pilots is of limited use in determining flight model accuracy in sims. They may accurately recall what they saw and felt, but their perception cannot provide precise physical states of their own aircraft, much less several others flying around them.

 

While it would be useful to suppress enemy superiority to prevent embarrassment in Washington D.C., there would be no logic in the USAF giving inaccurate tactical analysis to its pilots on the front line. Here is an anecdotal fact that contradicts this pilot's belief that the MiG-15bis was overwhelmingly superior and could have controlled the outcome of any and all engagements: Chuck Yeager flew the MiG-15bis versus the Sabre AND flew the Sabre against the MiG-15bis... whatever aircraft he was flying won. As to his questioning of why the NK/China/USSR pilots flew the tactics they did rather than hover at 50,000 feet: could he not understand that their mission wasn't to rack up F-86 kills at 30,000 feet? Their mission was to prevent ground attacks. When you are flying defense/interception, you always have to go to the altitude where the enemy is flying in a guns only environment. The MiG-15bis proved to be an exceptional B-29/B-50 killer, so the bombing missions fell to single engined prop fighters and slow jets at low altitudes. The F-86's were just an obstacle in the way of their real mission to kill F9Fs, F-84s, P-51s, F2Hs, etc. 

 

So, other than getting another first person perspective on Korean War air combat, I found little technical information that was of any use. I have far better references that go into much more detail and cover many points of view, including the enemies' viewpoint and experience.

[Do335 382]

While it would be useful to suppress enemy superiority to prevent embarrassment in Washington D.C., there would be no logic in the USAF giving inaccurate tactical analysis to its pilots on the front line. Here is an anecdotal fact that contradicts this pilot's belief that the MiG-15bis was overwhelmingly superior and could have controlled the outcome of any and all engagements: Chuck Yeager flew the MiG-15bis versus the Sabre AND flew the Sabre against the MiG-15bis... whatever aircraft he was flying won. As to his questioning of why the NK/China/USSR pilots flew the tactics they did rather than hover at 50,000 feet: could he not understand that their mission wasn't to rack up F-86 kills at 30,000 feet? Their mission was to prevent ground attacks. When you are flying defense/interception, you always have to go to the altitude where the enemy is flying in a guns only environment. The MiG-15bis proved to be an exceptional B-29/B-50 killer, so the bombing missions fell to single engined prop fighters and slow jets at low altitudes. The F-86's were just an obstacle in the way of their real mission to kill F9Fs, F-84s, P-51s, F2Hs, etc.

Agreed, as tactics are dominated by doctrine. The Mig is first and foremost an interceptor and was how twas employed.

 

But this period has always been a bit of mystery. First and foremost the KAW never rose to much fame compared to 'nam, let alone the gulf war. The real life accounts are hazy at best due to the years. The USAF side of the story is relatively transparent, but they're still subjective. The USSR/China side is shrouded by a thick layer of propaganda, secrecy and language barrier. For the technical side the info is even more scarce among the flight sim community. It is a time before John Boyd and his theories rose to wide recognition, so while we have some detailed EM chart comparison between the modern day fighters F-16 and Mig-29, except this chart that even no altitude is noted, there had been none other hard, indisputable facts/numbers comparison between the Sabre and Fagot. There are lots of accounts/personal opinions spread thru various websites and message boards but nothing concrete.

And even then, EM chart is not everything. While it depicts maneuverability, it doesn't for aircraft agility. Or control ergonomics, operational suitability, maintenance and reliability etc a multitude of aspects.

 

As a result we're forced none other than forming our own opinion. My own is that there's a degree of truth in Clark's words if I wade through its bitterness. I have no doubt the Mig outperforms the sabre up high. The situation is only worsened in his ride the 86E, it was heavier than the A and does not have the added thrust or wing area of the 6-3 86F. The all flying tail on the E helps with high mach dive and maneuvering, but it becomes less relevant when altitude is the dominant factor. Operationally when the E was coming off line, it was just the time when the soviets transitioned to the more powerful Mig-15bis which made things even worse. The things going for E's favor are the "soft" factors, better agility, SA and cockpit ergonomics, and of course, better dive and low altitude performance. And so the Sabre's tactics would be to defend itself with its agility from the initial onslaught and drag the fight down low to gain the upper hand.

 

Therefore the Mig on paper dominates this fight. It dictates the when and where of the engagement. But in reality there's this problem of pilot proficiency. In effect the Mig requires BnZ tactics, which demands precision shooting. I have a hard time imagining the poorly trained Chinese and NK pilots mastering this. If they're forced to tangle, the energy advantage is nullified. Of course as pilot skill gets better, it becomes the dominant factor and aircraft performance becomes less and less important, therefore we get the ~1:1 exchange ratio between Russian and US engagements.

 

Also there is a tactical problem of the Mig as a "climb advantage" fighter. What happens when it is caught at altitude (energy) disadvantage? I think there is another reason why the Migs were sometimes reluctant to engage. While they have the numbers advantage vs F-86s, the total numbers of UN fighters still far outweigh them, therefore the airspace down low for the Mig is dangerous. For example the F2H Banshee is quite capable of defending against/fighting the Mig at altitude due to its low wing loading, but it's mostly assigned mud moving duties. This also should be another reason why both sides employed "jet streams" instead of a large group entering mig alley in later stages of war. Quoting from Osprey "F-86 SABRE vs MiG-15, Korea 1950-53"

 

 

Kozhedub’s 324th launched its first mission from Langtao on April 3, and the MiG-15 pilots quickly learned that they had met their match in the 4th FIG’s Sabres. Crossing the Yalu still climbing for altitude, the Soviet aviators were attacked by a mixed formation led by 335th FIS “Chiefs” commander, Lt Col Benjamin H.Emmert Jr, a six-victory ace from the Mediterranean theater in World War II. One MiG-15 was shot down, its pilot being killed in action (KIA), and two others crash-landed, damaged beyond repair (DBR). Emmert was credited with one victory, as were Capt James Jabara (the first of 15 kills for the future 334th FIS ace) and two lieutenants. One F-86 was lost due to fuel exhaustion, its pilot becoming a prisoner of war (PoW).

As Capt Sergei Kramarenko, deputy commander of the 176th IAP’s 3rd Eskadra, later recalled, “All in all, the result of this action turned out quite sad – we’d lost a pilot

and three machines. The event showed us clearly that one shouldn’t engage the Sabres without providing oneself with an advantage in speed and altitude. Doing otherwise meant putting oneself under the fire of the Sabres’ machine guns. When they had the advantage in both speed and altitude [the Sabres] would have complete freedom of action and attack, and strike at our airplanes with ease!”

 

 

 

 

When it comes to the case of Lt Col Clarke, IMO it is quite likely that he met a honcho, or simply a Soviet pilot who is gutsy enough to dive thru severe buffeting. The Mig's actions are not unreasonable, as the dive started at 42,000 ft, even he faced control lockup, there is still ample altitude to deploy boards and pull out. Most importantly, as Streakeagle says he was too close as in gun range. The dive while defended him, mayhaps threw the mig pilot off his aim due to control problems, wasn't enough to get far enough out of visual range. It was only when he relied on his own training and pulled the rolling reversal with a far more responsive jet at 12,000ft that surprised the Mig and escaped. Tis my assessment of that situation. If I go so far as to make a suggestion, since the 86E boasts far better control approaching the mach, some high speed nose low maneuvers would better help his predicament, somewhat like F-4 vs Mig-17 tactics while better preserve his altitude reserve. I'm ofc just an amateur and can be completely off.

 

I can also see the psychological effect of being in such a life and death situation. There was a brief moment when Lt Col Clarke was below the Mig with a tally while the Mig doesn't, essentially an SA advantage. Instead of capitalizing on this by going on the offensive, his intention was to evade detection and escape. But tbh put anyone except someone extremely brave and confident in that situation it would likely be the same so I'm not really in a position to say otherwise, but just to note (to myself as well) that the numbers in play are after all secondary.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Do335

[Heck 496]

I'm gonna hijack my own thread here, and ask another question, since you guys seem to have good technical information. The only information on climb rate for the F-86F slat wing Sabre that I can find is 9300' per minute. Is this correct? Or are there other figures that I haven't found? Once again, I'm just curious, because all the numbers I can find don't seem to add up when it comes to the increase in climb rate between the E model (7250'/min) and the slatted F.

[Do335 382]

Heck (pun intented) at least for me I don't think I have nearly enough.

 

Currently reading this thread at the DCS foras, seems to have some good info although it's certainly not likely to reach any conclusion. Among them I finally see how the 6/3 wing works. There's also some good source there like the Mig's TO.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139690&page=7

 

Climb rates the F is much better for sure. There should be a comparison in your F-86E thread between the pics of mine and Fubar512's. (obviously the cliche of climb rates ain't a fixed figure but weight and altitude etc... dependent)

Edited June 28, 2015 by Do335

[Heck 496]

Heck (pun intented) at least for me I don't think I have nearly enough.

 

Currently reading this thread at the DCS foras, seems to have some good info although it's certainly not likely to reach any conclusion. There's also some good source there like the Mig's TO.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139690&page=7

 

Climb rates the F is much better for sure. There should be a comparison in your F-86E thread between the pics of mine and Fubar512's. (obviously the cliche of climb rates ain't a fixed figure but weight and altitude etc... dependent)

Thanks, Do335. I'll check that out. The only reason I asked is because the only published figures I could find didn't add up. I found it hard to believe that a 13.5% increase in thrust on an almost identical, but slightly heavier airframe could lead to a 28% increase in sustained (not zoom) climb rate. I'm a little familiar with SEP formulas, so this claimed sustained climb rate didn't make sense, unless there's some aerodynamic information that I was missing, because my knowledge of aerodynamics is limited to reading a couple of College level textbooks. The more I read about this stuff and try to figure it out, the more glad I am that I have Fubar's flight models to put me there, figuratively.

[Do335 382]

Thanks, Do335. I'll check that out. The only reason I asked is because the only published figures I could find didn't add up. I found it hard to believe that a 13.5% increase in thrust on an almost identical, but slightly heavier airframe could lead to a 28% increase in sustained (not zoom) climb rate. I'm a little familiar with SEP formulas, so this claimed sustained climb rate didn't make sense, unless there's some aerodynamic information that I was missing, because my knowledge of aerodynamics is limited to reading a couple of College level textbooks. The more I read about this stuff and try to figure it out, the more glad I am that I have Fubar's flight models to put me there, figuratively.

Afaik the saying of xx missile has xx range or in this case xx plane has a xx climb rate has long been defunct. Too much variable at play to make it a fixed number. So tech manuals flight test results and EM charts are much better. At least certainly trust your own math.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Do335

[+streakeagle 871]

I don't know that Russian propaganda was all that much worse than US propaganda. It is true that the Russians credited the MiG-15 with more F-86 kills than were deployed in total throughout the war. But how many times have respectable US sources quoted that F-86 Sabres scored a 10:1 kill ratio compared to Vietnam F-4s pathetic 2:1 ratio? Thanks to Russian documents, we now know that kill ratio was very close to 2:1 in Korea, with Chinese/NK pilots edging the ratio toward 3:1 and USSR pilots aroun 1.4:1. So, I preferred balanced documentation with information from both sides involved rather than assuming one side is mostly correct and the other is mostly lying.

 

It seems that the key to getting history right is the loss records. With rarer exception, the records reflect what aircraft were actually lost/damaged on what days. Correlated with kill claims, this provides the most accurate estimate of combat results. For Vietnam, the records of both sides agree about 70-80% of the time. This is absolutely amazing when you consider the huge amount of overclaiming that occurred in WW2 and Korea. But even in Vietnam, there are days when a pilot was certain of what he had shot down but the other side recorded no loss for that day. So was the pilot mistaken or confused? Or was there an accounting error in the loss records? Or was there a conscious effort by one or both sides to distort their numbers?

[Do335 382]

...

Oh man, this is a can of worms Streakeagle. I reckon the subject is more for ppl with appetite as historians and can only say luckily I'm not one woot

[Heck 496]

Totally agree, Streakeagle. Loss records are the only way to go, especially in a wacky war like Korea where everyone was trying to hide what was really going on (Maple Special missions, Stalin says we're not really here, etc.). You're right Do335, it is a can of worms. 

[+streakeagle 871]

Jump way ahead to Operation Desert Storm. It took a while to admit/confirm the F/A-18 shot down by the MiG-25. No one on the US side even wanted to consider that an old, lone MiG-25 operated by Iraq could slip through AWACS and CAP/escorts to snipe a very modern F/A-18 with state of the art RWR/ECM. I wonder where that Iraqi pilot is now? Did he even know he scored the kill?

[Do335 382]

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1980-3039

 

So it is... the "Evolution of the F-86". I am ripped off....!   This is a bloody rob I say.  A .pdf of only 15 pages costs $25. Only 15 pages! I'd thought it'd contained more info than this.

 

Anyway....... the rudimentary explanation of the 6-3 wing. The performance gain is not really a larger wing surface or a higher wing sweep as I thought before, but mainly to induce vortex by the sharper leading edge hence non-linearly increase CL as alpha goes up.

 

 

Tis is a preview found on the net which explains the phenomena...

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-81932-2_15#page-1

 

I deduce understanding of vortexes probably progressed over the years and enhanced to for example the LEX design on the F-16....

Edited June 29, 2015 by Do335

[Heck 496]

Oh, I thought the only reason they removed the slats was because when they opened at high angles of attack they created extra drag. Guess I was wrong. Thanks, Do335. Sorry you had to spend $25 for 15 pages. That is a rip. A $1.66 per page on a pdf is quite steep. For a print copy of something, I could see it, but for a pdf? Come on boys, it didn't even cost you that much for the program to create the pdf. And I know their response would be, "But this information is hard to find, that's what you're paying for." BS

Jump way ahead to Operation Desert Storm. It took a while to admit/confirm the F/A-18 shot down by the MiG-25. No one on the US side even wanted to consider that an old, lone MiG-25 operated by Iraq could slip through AWACS and CAP/escorts to snipe a very modern F/A-18 with state of the art RWR/ECM. I wonder where that Iraqi pilot is now? Did he even know he scored the kill?

I don't think we'll ever know, Streakeagle. Did the Mig pilot even survive the war? Shows how much reading I was not doing during that time period, I thought the F/A-18 was lost to ground assets.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Heck

[LtColJoeClark 7]

http://sabresandmigs.com/index.html

 

I was wondering if anyone else here had come across this webpage. It seems to be done on behalf of Lt. Col. Joseph R Clark, but since he would be 91 years old, obviously someone else might have helped to set it up. Anyone have any other information about this webpage, or the books mentioned? Just curious. There's no contact information at the website, so I can't ask them.

Heck  Dear "Heck".  "On behalf of"  my foot. I did this web page. Everone who is 91 is not senile, having the slobber mopped frrom his chin and mumbling into his pablum. My manuscripts--one is  based upon my year as a Sabre pilot with the 51st Wing in Korea and the other is based on observations I have made on  some of the lies and absurd tales that exist in some of the books that our "herores" of the Korean War have published. My thesis is simple. Either there is some positive value in truth, honor and integrity--or there is not.  I believe there is. 

[Heck 496]

 

http://sabresandmigs.com/index.html

 

I was wondering if anyone else here had come across this webpage. It seems to be done on behalf of Lt. Col. Joseph R Clark, but since he would be 91 years old, obviously someone else might have helped to set it up. Anyone have any other information about this webpage, or the books mentioned? Just curious. There's no contact information at the website, so I can't ask them.

Heck  Dear "Heck".  "On behalf of"  my foot. I did this web page. Everone who is 91 is not senile, having the slobber mopped frrom his chin and mumbling into his pablum. My manuscripts--one is  based upon my year as a Sabre pilot with the 51st Wing in Korea and the other is based on observations I have made on  some of the lies and absurd tales that exist in some of the books that our "herores" of the Korean War have published. My thesis is simple. Either there is some positive value in truth, honor and integrity--or there is not.  I believe there is. 

 

Thank you for posting, Colonel. I meant no insult to you, Sir. Unfortunately, when you find things on the net, you never know their source, or who is actually behind them. It's an unfortunate side effect of the anonymity of the internet. Sometimes I have found unscrupulous people pretending to be what they are not on the net. I visit your site every day to see if you've posted anything new on your experiences in Korea. I was especially interested reading your latest update on your short experience on your tour as part of the 51st's confirmation board. You have one avid follower, at least. I'm sure there are many more. I hope you can find someone to publish your manuscripts. I would immediately add them to my collection of books on the Korean War. Of all the wars in history, the Korean War is the one that seems to best fit Ernst Toller's quote, "History is the propaganda of the Victors." I, for one, am tired of listening to the propaganda of the Korean War, that's why I was so glad to find your site. Thank you again for posting your experiences. I will continue to look for new additions.   

Edited July 28, 2015 by Heck

[LtColJoeClark 7]

Heck--Thank you for responding  to my comment on yours.  Believe me, I was not in the least offended by what you said about "the old guy" probably didn't do this by himself. I know that the sterotype of the 91 year old codger is as I described it in my answer to you, but I have been really fortunate health -wise. I do work at it. I exercise, eat non-processed foods, lotsof the right vitamins and minerals. I  retired from the AF in August 1966 because I was so thoroughly against our war of aggression in Viet Nam that I could no longer be part of it. Since I retired I have played golf every day all summer long every summer. I used to be a scratch hitter, but age has taken a bit of a toll. But, I have had several games in the low eighties this summer.

        Why "Heck"? A  nickname?  Where do you live?  I live on a lake in N. Michigan and have--almost since retirement. I briefly took a job with Boeing as a Customer Engineer in late '66 and '67.  That was another experience I should Blog about. You are obviously bright, and you have had some of the same experiences I have had when reading the puffed-up and bizarre writings of some of the so-called "aces" of the Korean Air War. I said "so-called" aces because I know from experience that many of the "kills" that were verified  by "overly-friendly Claims Boards"--were not kills at all.  The vast majority of the Sabre pilots I flew with in the 51st Wing  in Korea were true-blue honest guys who would be more likely to "understate" their accomplishments than to lie about them. But with some of the less principled officers, the name of the game was a  mad scramble for fame and glory, and they wouldn't hesitate to lie if they had to-- to get it. When just telling the simple truth about a mission, a dog fight, a kill claim is so easy-- and it is the right thing to do, it blows my mind to see the absolutely absurd ways in which some of those guys have written about having done things that were physically impossible. Thank you for your interest, Heck. I will be adding more blogs as time passes---probably until I do!

[LtColJoeClark 7]

Read some.. I still remember a TV interview with the Chinese ace Zhao baotong. He had 2 F-86 scale models, one painted with the yellow tail, the other painted with the checkered flag. He pointed to the yellow tailed one and said: these guys are harder to deal with. LOL It seems the 51st had some attitude problems!

 

While it is true that the 15bis is much superior to the 86E up high, I think the author could be a little burned by how he was treated by his CO and the general public. It is now known the mig does have buffeting and total aileron control loss approaching the mach. The late model got the automatic air brakes. And while the Sabre could eventually extend in the dive the better t/w ratio of the mig means the latter could easily keep it up initially. I think the mig was so deep in his six that a simple climb or dive couldn't solve the problem if I'm not too arrogant in disputing a RL pilot that is!.................

Do335--Thanks for commenting on a Blog on my website. Since you didn't identify which Blog you were commenting on, I'm kinda flying blind. But I'll try to make meaningful comments on yours. I am confused by the "yellow tailed" v.s. the "checkered flag".  The F-86Es we brought to Korea in November 1951 on the CVE  Cape Esperance all bore the WW II Black "invasion type" markings on their wings and fuselages. As I recall, the F-86As that the 4th Fighter Wing had bore the same markings.  I was assigned as a Flight Commander in the 16th Sq. in Colonel Gabreski's 51st Wing.  "Gabby" got some of the "E" models and Colonel Harry Thyng got some for his 4th Wing. After my first  few missions, because of the similar appearance of the MiG and the F-86 at altitude and  the frequent attacks of F-86s on other F-86s that we were experiencing, I knew we had to do something to make a/c identification in the combat area quicker and easier. On December 28th, 1951, I went to Lt. Colonel Jones, the 51st Group CO, mentioned the F-86 firing at other F-86 problem and told him I thought I had a solution to the problem. I mentioned the irridescent, high intensity, reflective orange and chartruese paint used on highway signs back home and recommended that our F-86s be painted with those paints with broad stripes around the wings, fuselages and vertical stabilizers--with our 16th Sq. with one color and the 25th Sq. the other. Jones scoffed, gave me derisive look and  said, "That's a stupid idea Clark. I ain't running no Gawd--d flying circus here."  BUT, just one week later he had all of the planes in the 51st Wing painted with the  strips I had recommended--but just with plain yellow paint.  It was not long before the 4th Wing followed suit and subsequently all of the F--86s in the world were pained with my recommended markings--but with plain yellow paint.

      In the 51st Wing the two squadrons were allowed a little latitude with the paint jobs on their vertical stablizers. The 16th Sq. used the yellow stripe, while the 25th Sq. used a "checker-board" design with a thin red stripe across near the top. Zhao's comment seems strange to me wherein he implies that the 16th Sq. pilots were better than the 25th pilots.  And I am at a loss to understand whatever was it that led whoever it was to make the silly observation about the 51st having some "attitude" problems???  How was that statement justified?? You are right Do335, I was shocked and chagrined at the overall stupidity and deceit of my Group CO and couldn't begin to understand what had led him to treat me in such a cruel and dishonorable manner. I didn't understand your reference to my treatment by "the general public". As far as I knew, the "general public" didn't even know I existed.  And, other than the false info that was rife in the AF and  even indorsed by General Al Boyd and Chuck Yaeger, willing or unwilling members of the "the MiG-15 is inferior" element in the Air Force, I have no idea where you got the idea that the MiG experience "buffeting and total aileron control loss near the Mach."  I personally pursued MiGs at near Mach One and never noticed the mentioned violent "control" problems. And no less an authority than Boyne writes about MiG formations flying into North Korea  at near Mach One. Were those huge "gaggles" of  50-100  MiGs all floundering through the air fighting "loss of aileron control"? And, you were right. That MiG was "so deep in my six" that NO simple anything I could do would lose him.  Thank you for your comment.

[Heck 496]

Why "Heck"? A  nickname?  Where do you live?  

Heck is just an old internet nickname, Colonel. I live in upstate New York, am semi-retired (still have to work a little), and have a Bachelor's degree in English. I'm the person who commented on the "There is Value in Truth" section of your blog. I've had an avid interest in aviation my whole life, especially the Korean Air War. Have you had any luck getting a Publisher to look at your manuscripts? I hope that you do. If you can't, I'd self-publish electronically, like on Kindle, but I don't know if you'd want to go that route. It would be a way to get your story out there, which would benefit everyone's understanding of what really happened in Korea. I have some electronic books about Soviet Pilots, so it is one avenue for information about this overly mythologised war to get out there. Even if you decide not to do that, I'll still be following your blog. Hopefully I'll still be reading it when you're one hundred, although your golf game might suffer a little after ninety-five...

[ironroad 218]

The blog posts have a bitter, condescending tone. Everyone but him must be delusional, a liar, or ignorant. 

I think his assessment of Americans applies equally well to himself: 

 

I have no problem with that statement, many Americans are, as are many other people around the world.

 

The thing is to know your biases, weaknesses, and vices and KNOW how you can learn from them or use them to your advantage when the need arises.

[ironroad 218]

I don't know that Russian propaganda was all that much worse than US propaganda. It is true that the Russians credited the MiG-15 with more F-86 kills than were deployed in total throughout the war. But how many times have respectable US sources quoted that F-86 Sabres scored a 10:1 kill ratio compared to Vietnam F-4s pathetic 2:1 ratio? Thanks to Russian documents, we now know that kill ratio was very close to 2:1 in Korea, with Chinese/NK pilots edging the ratio toward 3:1 and USSR pilots aroun 1.4:1. So, I preferred balanced documentation with information from both sides involved rather than assuming one side is mostly correct and the other is mostly lying.

 

It seems that the key to getting history right is the loss records. With rarer exception, the records reflect what aircraft were actually lost/damaged on what days. Correlated with kill claims, this provides the most accurate estimate of combat results. For Vietnam, the records of both sides agree about 70-80% of the time. This is absolutely amazing when you consider the huge amount of overclaiming that occurred in WW2 and Korea. But even in Vietnam, there are days when a pilot was certain of what he had shot down but the other side recorded no loss for that day. So was the pilot mistaken or confused? Or was there an accounting error in the loss records? Or was there a conscious effort by one or both sides to distort their numbers?

A lot of factors go into the historical record, particularity when during wartime. In many cases "fudged" numbers can be a combination of sheer incompetence; and properly maintaining records after conflict, malice; intentionally skewing numbers for some sort of personal gain (or to avoid culpability); blind patriotism; "they can't be that good!" or "we can't be that bad!", or just a freak act (simple mistake); "bandit was trailing smoke on fire unresponsive", gun camera footage shows aircraft serial number 69 on fire, intelligence indicates aircraft 69 crash landed was repaired and put back into action.

 

1+ for your post BTW