US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War?

[Rats]

US F86 sabres shot down a lot of Mig 15s in the Korean War. The ratio was
around 8 - 1. I recently watched a documentary about the confrontation
between these two planes. Apparently they were quite evenly matched with the
F86 having a slight overall advantage. In the end the high ratio was
attributed to the superiour skills and experience of the US pilots. Many of
them were WWII veterans while the North Korean and Chinese pilots had bugger
all experience. However what was interesting was that some Russian pilots
also flew against the US. Does anyone have any accurate records on what the
kill:loss ratio against Russian pilots in the Korean War were?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Rats" > wrote:

> US F86 sabres shot down a lot of Mig 15s in the Korean War. The ratio was
> around 8 - 1. I recently watched a documentary about the confrontation
> between these two planes. Apparently they were quite evenly matched with the
> F86 having a slight overall advantage. In the end the high ratio was
> attributed to the superiour skills and experience of the US pilots. Many of
> them were WWII veterans while the North Korean and Chinese pilots had bugger
> all experience. However what was interesting was that some Russian pilots
> also flew against the US. Does anyone have any accurate records on what the
> kill:loss ratio against Russian pilots in the Korean War were?
>
>

Michael Petukhov will probably tell us that NO Russian pilots were shot
down in the Korean War -- especially by Americans! He will probably tell
us that ALL the kills on Americans were by Russians.

[Rats]

> Michael Petukhov will probably tell us that NO Russian pilots were shot
> down in the Korean War -- especially by Americans! He will probably tell
> us that ALL the kills on Americans were by Russians.

He's probably right!

[Guy Alcala]

Rats wrote:

> US F86 sabres shot down a lot of Mig 15s in the Korean War. The ratio was
> around 8 - 1. I recently watched a documentary about the confrontation
> between these two planes. Apparently they were quite evenly matched with the
> F86 having a slight overall advantage. In the end the high ratio was
> attributed to the superiour skills and experience of the US pilots. Many of
> them were WWII veterans while the North Korean and Chinese pilots had bugger
> all experience. However what was interesting was that some Russian pilots
> also flew against the US. Does anyone have any accurate records on what the
> kill:loss ratio against Russian pilots in the Korean War were?

One of the former senior commanders (can't remember if he commanded the 64th IAK
or an IAD) stated that they'd lost about 335 MiG-15s, 300 in combat and the
others operational. That doesn't include Chinese or North Korean losses, and
the U.S. claims really increased after the Soviets went home. The book on
actual versus claimed kills still remains to be written, but here's a good URL
which has some more or less unbiased research from Soviet sources, comparing
them to US reports:

http://www.korean-war.com/ussraircombat.html

Here's an American-compiled chronology:

http://www.korean-war.com/AirChronology.html

and here's an excellent official source on U.S. Korean War losses:

http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald.htm

Gu

[Michael Petukhov]

"Rats" > wrote in message >...
> US F86 sabres shot down a lot of Mig 15s in the Korean War. The ratio was
> around 8 - 1. I recently watched a documentary about the confrontation
> between these two planes. Apparently they were quite evenly matched with the
> F86 having a slight overall advantage. In the end the high ratio was
> attributed to the superiour skills and experience of the US pilots. Many of
> them were WWII veterans while the North Korean and Chinese pilots had bugger
> all experience. However what was interesting was that some Russian pilots
> also flew against the US. Does anyone have any accurate records on what the
> kill:loss ratio against Russian pilots in the Korean War were?

Russia data shows a bit diffrent picture. According to recently
published official data "Russia and USSR in wars of XX century.
the statistical survey", ed. G.F. Krivisheev, Olma-press, 2001, Moscow.
p. 524. It says:

"... Totaly soviet pilots made 63000 sorties, participated in 1790
air battles, where they shot down 1309 enemy planes. ... Totaly
soviet Air forces lost 335 planes and 120 pilots in the war. Total
losses of soviet military personel in Korean war was 315 men including
168 officers and 147 sergants and soldiers."

Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.

Michael

[Krztalizer]

>
>
>Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.

As long as the reader accepts that the Soviet Union never told a lie (cof, cof,
cof). As for the claims:losses total, nothing in what you posted breaks out US
from Allied losses, so this doesn't answer the question of how many _US_ losses
were caused by Soviets. Seems downright strange that in 3 out of 4 cases that
a Soviet pilot engaged an enemy, he shot it down - thats a level of military
effectiveness that requires the reader to believe that Soviet pilots swept the
skies of Sabres. That didn't happen.

Authors of books depend on accuracy by both the pilots and the report-writers
that came before them, and since every AF in history overclaimed, there is no
reason to believe the Soviet AF didn't - since they wouldn't cross the Yalu out
of fear that their participation would be discovered, its far-fetched to
believe that they could have been in a position to verify every one of the
claims. So its "Claims vs Losses", not "Shot down US aircraft vs Soviet
Losses". If your statistic is supposes to represent the former category, then
yeah, that's probably accurate - 4:1 in "claims" is probably right.

[Matt Wiser]

"Rats" > wrote:
>> Michael Petukhov will probably tell us that
>NO Russian pilots were shot
>> down in the Korean War -- especially by Americans!
>He will probably tell
>> us that ALL the kills on Americans were by
>Russians.
>
>He's probably right!
>
>
Not necessarily. Check the ACIG.org lists of Korean War kills. There are
some by PRC pilots, and the NKAF. (not many though) But you're right about
poor Mikey likely saying that no Russians were shot down by Americans: that'd
be news to the F9F pilots from VF-781 on USS Oriskany (CVA-34) on 18 Nov
52: they were jumped by MiG-15s from Vladivostok. Two of the bad guys were
sent down into the Sea of Japan, the third was shot up and went RTB. And
this is just one example, there are plenty of kills listed on the site where
the victim was Soviet, and some of the pilots are named.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[BUFDRVR]

>Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.

ROFLMAO...you boob, even if the number 1309 is accurate, surely these include
B-29s, B-26s, F-51s, and other such prop driven aircraft. The question was
Soviet piloted MiG-15 versus the F-86. I realize English isn't you first
language, but your reading compression skills are awful.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ken Duffey]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.
>
> ROFLMAO...you boob, even if the number 1309 is accurate, surely these include
> B-29s, B-26s, F-51s, and other such prop driven aircraft. The question was
> Soviet piloted MiG-15 versus the F-86. I realize English isn't you first
> language, but your reading compression skills are awful.
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

By 'compression', I take it you mean 'comprehension' ??

Pot ?? Kettle ??

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Krztalizer) writes:
>>
>>
>>Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.
>
> As long as the reader accepts that the Soviet Union never told a lie (cof, cof,
> cof). As for the claims:losses total, nothing in what you posted breaks out US
> from Allied losses, so this doesn't answer the question of how many _US_ losses
> were caused by Soviets. Seems downright strange that in 3 out of 4 cases that
> a Soviet pilot engaged an enemy, he shot it down - thats a level of military
> effectiveness that requires the reader to believe that Soviet pilots swept the
> skies of Sabres. That didn't happen.

Total U.S. losses, to _all_ causes, were abut 1300. Most of those
losses were to Flak, and operational losses.
There never were that many Sabres available. The initial 4th Fighter
Interceptor Wing deployment was 2 squadrons on the line, with one back
in Japan working up and standing Air Defence alert. Eventaully, they
were able to get logistics support and ramp space to get all 3
squadrons to Korea. That's 50-75 airplanes. When the 51st FIW
switched over to Sabres, they only had 2 squadrons - that makes 'bout
125 total. That stayed steady until the 8th and 18th Fighter Bomber
Wings, and 2 Sqn, SAAF, which was attached to them, converted in early
'53. So there never were all that many Sabres around to shoot at.

The Soviet Pilots, and their immediate commanders in Korea seem, in
those interviews that aren't being paid for in Vodka, to be giving
numbers that are pretty much in line with U.S. clains & losses, modulo
a bit of overclaiming on both sides.
Although what was being reported to the Staff back home may very well
be another matter - One of the processes allowed in confirming kills
on the Soviet side was "Battle Calculus" - basically the idea that if
you hosed off a full load of ammo at somebody, you _must_ have gotten
enough hits to knock him down. An official excuse for wishful
thinking. (Sort of like the old duck-hunting joke - two hunters in a
blind in a cold, clammy marsh. Suddenly a pair of ducks fly over.
The first hunter bangs off a pair of shots, and his bird falls. The
second fires off his, to no visible effect. Second hunter turns to
the first, asn says, "You;ve just witnessed a miracle - that's a dead
duck you see flying away".

>
> Authors of books depend on accuracy by both the pilots and the report-writers
> that came before them, and since every AF in history overclaimed, there is no
> reason to believe the Soviet AF didn't - since they wouldn't cross the Yalu out
> of fear that their participation would be discovered, its far-fetched to
> believe that they could have been in a position to verify every one of the
> claims. So its "Claims vs Losses", not "Shot down US aircraft vs Soviet
> Losses". If your statistic is supposes to represent the former category, then
> yeah, that's probably accurate - 4:1 in "claims" is probably right.



--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Jarg]

"Ken Duffey" > wrote in message
...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> > >Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.
> >
> > ROFLMAO...you boob, even if the number 1309 is accurate, surely these
include
> > B-29s, B-26s, F-51s, and other such prop driven aircraft. The question
was
> > Soviet piloted MiG-15 versus the F-86. I realize English isn't you first
> > language, but your reading compression skills are awful.
> >
> > BUFDRVR
> >
> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> > everyone on Bear Creek"
>
> By 'compression', I take it you mean 'comprehension' ??
>
> Pot ?? Kettle ??
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
> Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
> Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
>
>

There is a difference between spelling and comprehension. Guess your
weakness is the later.

Jarg

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Duffey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > BUFDRVR wrote:
> >
> > > >Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.
> > >
> > > ROFLMAO...you boob, even if the number 1309 is accurate, surely these
> include
> > > B-29s, B-26s, F-51s, and other such prop driven aircraft. The question
> was
> > > Soviet piloted MiG-15 versus the F-86. I realize English isn't you
first
> > > language, but your reading compression skills are awful.
> > >
> > > BUFDRVR
> > >
> > > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> harelips
> > > everyone on Bear Creek"
> >
> > By 'compression', I take it you mean 'comprehension' ??
> >
> > Pot ?? Kettle ??
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
> > Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
> > Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
>
> There is a difference between spelling and comprehension. Guess your
> weakness is the later.

A mindless bot can spell.

[Michael Petukhov]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Krztalizer) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>Thus it is 1309/335 = 4:1 in our advantage.
> >
> > As long as the reader accepts that the Soviet Union never told a lie (cof, cof,
> > cof). As for the claims:losses total, nothing in what you posted breaks out US
> > from Allied losses, so this doesn't answer the question of how many _US_ losses
> > were caused by Soviets. Seems downright strange that in 3 out of 4 cases that
> > a Soviet pilot engaged an enemy, he shot it down - thats a level of military
> > effectiveness that requires the reader to believe that Soviet pilots swept the
> > skies of Sabres. That didn't happen.
>
> Total U.S. losses, to _all_ causes, were abut 1300.

That's unlikely. Chines and Korean pilots surely also contributed some.
Also those 1309 mentioned was those whose wreckage was found in NK
control area. At least only those were allowed to officially report
to Moscow. Many US planes surely crashed in SK control area and
in sea water. There should be quite a bit of technical crashes as well.
So all together around 3000 planes I guess, 3000.

> Most of those
> losses were to Flak, and operational losses.
> There never were that many Sabres available. The initial 4th Fighter
> Interceptor Wing deployment was 2 squadrons on the line, with one back
> in Japan working up and standing Air Defence alert. Eventaully, they
> were able to get logistics support and ramp space to get all 3
> squadrons to Korea. That's 50-75 airplanes. When the 51st FIW
> switched over to Sabres, they only had 2 squadrons - that makes 'bout
> 125 total. That stayed steady until the 8th and 18th Fighter Bomber
> Wings, and 2 Sqn, SAAF, which was attached to them, converted in early
> '53. So there never were all that many Sabres around to shoot at.
>
> The Soviet Pilots, and their immediate commanders in Korea seem, in
> those interviews that aren't being paid for in Vodka, to be giving
> numbers that are pretty much in line with U.S. clains & losses, modulo
> a bit of overclaiming on both sides.
> Although what was being reported to the Staff back home may very well
> be another matter -

maybe in USAF it can be another matter. But in Stalin times
one must be crazy to lie in official reports. And what's for.
VVS was doing pretty well against USAF in Koreia according
to any standards.


> One of the processes allowed in confirming kills
> on the Soviet side was "Battle Calculus" - basically the idea that if
> you hosed off a full load of ammo at somebody, you _must_ have gotten
> enough hits to knock him down.

Hm...

> An official excuse for wishful
> thinking. (Sort of like the old duck-hunting joke - two hunters in a
> blind in a cold, clammy marsh. Suddenly a pair of ducks fly over.
> The first hunter bangs off a pair of shots, and his bird falls. The
> second fires off his, to no visible effect. Second hunter turns to
> the first, asn says, "You;ve just witnessed a miracle - that's a dead
> duck you see flying away".

I have to agree the numbers given are highly inaccurate.
There were much more US planes shot down and crashed outside
of NK control zone which were unaccounted for. But i have to
note that our own losses are pretty accurate and we did lost
335 Migs and 120 pilots. So the ration is many:1 in soviet
advantage.

Michael
>
> >
> > Authors of books depend on accuracy by both the pilots and the report-writers
> > that came before them, and since every AF in history overclaimed, there is no
> > reason to believe the Soviet AF didn't - since they wouldn't cross the Yalu out
> > of fear that their participation would be discovered, its far-fetched to
> > believe that they could have been in a position to verify every one of the
> > claims. So its "Claims vs Losses", not "Shot down US aircraft vs Soviet
> > Losses". If your statistic is supposes to represent the former category, then
> > yeah, that's probably accurate - 4:1 in "claims" is probably right.

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)

>maybe in USAF it can be another matter. But in Stalin times
>one must be crazy to lie in official reports. And what's for.
>VVS was doing pretty well against USAF in Koreia according
>to any standards.
>

People lied to Stalin all the time just to stay alive. That pig encouraged it.

Beria and his animals extracted lies from those he tortured and he passed them
on to Stalin.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>There should be quite a bit of technical crashes as well.
>So all together around 3000 planes I guess, 3000.
>

That's why we are all here, Michael - to read about your "guesses".

>
>maybe in USAF it can be another matter. But in Stalin times
>one must be crazy to lie in official reports.

Yah. Better to tell Iron Joe that the latest and greatest Soviet fighters are
being lost in droves, accomplishing little, and see what he sends you for
christmas?

>And what's for.

because Iron Joe didn't tolerate failure. This is Stalin, not someone sane.

>VVS was doing pretty well against USAF in Koreia according
>to any standards.

Well, at the time, the Soviets were denying (other word LYING) that they were
even present. Like the old saying, "Were they lying then, or now?"

>There were much more US planes shot down and crashed outside
>of NK control zone which were unaccounted for. But i have to
>note that our own losses are pretty accurate and we did lost
>335 Migs and 120 pilots. So the ration is many:1 in soviet
>advantage.

.....you _guess_.

[BUFDRVR]

>There is a difference between spelling and comprehension. Guess your
>weakness is the later.
>

Now that was funny....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ken Duffey]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >There is a difference between spelling and comprehension. Guess your
> >weakness is the later.
> >
>
> Now that was funny....
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

No - I comprehended fully.

I was just commenting on the fact that, if you are going to criticise someone's
reading comprehension skills, you should at least get your own spelling correct!

It was done tongue-in-cheek - but that obviously never came across.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[Peter Kemp]

On 25 Jan 2004 00:14:46 -0800, (Michael
Petukhov) wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>>
>> Total U.S. losses, to _all_ causes, were abut 1300.
>
>That's unlikely. Chines and Korean pilots surely also contributed some.
>Also those 1309 mentioned was those whose wreckage was found in NK
>control area. At least only those were allowed to officially report
>to Moscow. Many US planes surely crashed in SK control area and
>in sea water. There should be quite a bit of technical crashes as well.
>So all together around 3000 planes I guess, 3000.

>maybe in USAF it can be another matter. But in Stalin times
>one must be crazy to lie in official reports. And what's for.
>VVS was doing pretty well against USAF in Koreia according
>to any standards.
>
>I have to agree the numbers given are highly inaccurate.
>There were much more US planes shot down and crashed outside
>of NK control zone which were unaccounted for. But i have to
>note that our own losses are pretty accurate and we did lost
>335 Migs and 120 pilots. So the ration is many:1 in soviet
>advantage.

So the US losses of 1300 are "unlikely", and you *guess* they're about
3000, yet you accept the Soviet losses at face value, despite the fact
that for over 30 years they were claiming not to have even been in
theatre, and thus are proven liars on the subject? Goo Grief, even for
you that's a new low.

Peter Kemp

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Michael Petukhov) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>> (Krztalizer) writes:

> That's unlikely. Chines and Korean pilots surely also contributed some.
> Also those 1309 mentioned was those whose wreckage was found in NK
> control area. At least only those were allowed to officially report
> to Moscow. Many US planes surely crashed in SK control area and
> in sea water. There should be quite a bit of technical crashes as well.
> So all together around 3000 planes I guess, 3000.

Yonder flies a dead duck.

>> The Soviet Pilots, and their immediate commanders in Korea seem, in
>> those interviews that aren't being paid for in Vodka, to be giving
>> numbers that are pretty much in line with U.S. clains & losses, modulo
>> a bit of overclaiming on both sides.
>> Although what was being reported to the Staff back home may very well
>> be another matter -
>
> maybe in USAF it can be another matter. But in Stalin times
> one must be crazy to lie in official reports. And what's for.
> VVS was doing pretty well against USAF in Koreia according
> to any standards.

The "Soviet Vo;unteers" were actually contesting U.S. Air Superiority
of a small segment of the border area between North Korea and
Manchuria. And, yes, the more experienced units fought hard, and
achieved much better success than the novices in the DPRK or PRC.
But they never achieved their goal of preventing the U.N. forces from
attacking any target that they desired to strike.
ANd the kill claims recorded at teh Staff Level in Moscow are higher
than those reported from Manchuria, and the claims released by the
Soviet Government are higher still. So _somebody_ within the Soviet
Hierarchy was definitely doing some Creative Arithmetic.

The biggest threat to the U.S.A.F> maintaining Air Superiority was
logistics. It took a while for the U.S.A.F. to be properly supporting
the Sabres stationed in Korea - This, however, was a function of
internal policies - (Louis B. Johnson, Truman's Secretary of Defence,
was, quite frankly, an idiot, and only Robert S. Macnamara ranks up
with him in terms of being able to screw up a Free Lunch.) and
conflicting industrial priorities, especially with reference to the
demand for J47 jet engines, which were not only used in Sabres, but
also in the B-47 and as auxilliary powerplants for the B-36.


>> One of the processes allowed in confirming kills
>> on the Soviet side was "Battle Calculus" - basically the idea that if
>> you hosed off a full load of ammo at somebody, you _must_ have gotten
>> enough hits to knock him down.
>
> Hm...

Oh, there's no doubt.

>> An official excuse for wishful
>> thinking. (Sort of like the old duck-hunting joke - two hunters in a
>> blind in a cold, clammy marsh. Suddenly a pair of ducks fly over.
>> The first hunter bangs off a pair of shots, and his bird falls. The
>> second fires off his, to no visible effect. Second hunter turns to
>> the first, asn says, "You;ve just witnessed a miracle - that's a dead
>> duck you see flying away".
>
> I have to agree the numbers given are highly inaccurate.
> There were much more US planes shot down and crashed outside
> of NK control zone which were unaccounted for. But i have to
> note that our own losses are pretty accurate and we did lost
> 335 Migs and 120 pilots. So the ration is many:1 in soviet
> advantage.

Yonder flies a dead duck.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Matt Wiser]

(B2431) wrote:
>>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>
>>maybe in USAF it can be another matter. But
>in Stalin times
>>one must be crazy to lie in official reports.
>And what's for.
>>VVS was doing pretty well against USAF in Koreia
>according
>>to any standards.
>>
>
>People lied to Stalin all the time just to stay
>alive. That pig encouraged it.
>
>Beria and his animals extracted lies from those
>he tortured and he passed them
>on to Stalin.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
Like when Rokossovsky had his teeth pulled out by Beri's goons for being
an enemy of the state based on "evidence" from a man who'd been dead for
twenty years?
When he was a Marshal he never forgave or forgot and waited for his revenge;
he got it when Beria was shot in a Politburo meeting. Rokossvosky led a Parachute
battalion into the Lubyanka with a list of 300 single-spaced pages of names.
The lucky ones were summarily liquidated. The unlucky ones were thrown into
the cells after releasing those already there, tortured under GRU supervision,
and then shot. Zhukov said in response to a young Major's question whether
taking Berlin was his finest hour, he replied, "No, the removal of Beria!"


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Krztalizer]

>yet you accept the Soviet losses at face value, despite the fact
>that for over 30 years they were claiming not to have even been in
>theatre, and thus are proven liars on the subject? Good Grief, even for
>you that's a new low.

No its not :)

[Michael Petukhov]

Ken Duffey > wrote in message >...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> > >There is a difference between spelling and comprehension. Guess your
> > >weakness is the later.
> > >
> >
> > Now that was funny....
> >
> > BUFDRVR
> >
> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> > everyone on Bear Creek"
>
> No - I comprehended fully.
>
> I was just commenting on the fact that, if you are going to criticise someone's
> reading comprehension skills, you should at least get your own spelling correct!
>

Why is the spelling only and not a comprehension skills as well?

Michael

> It was done tongue-in-cheek - but that obviously never came across.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
> Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
> Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++