In article ,
nt (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