Re: Panther V Mig Redux

[Joe Brennan <jbren1@optonline.net>]

Mr. Zampini:

Easy I meant if we take each side's admitted losses attributed to air combat
as the final word, otherwise more complicated, but interesting too, as in a
number of your other posts/articles I've read examining this sort of
subject.

In the 7/21/51 case though the pattern of facts in US accounts/records makes
me skeptical of additional losses:
-KORWALD lists only Bell's Panther that day and no other VMF-311 F9F
Panthers that month
-VMF-311 was the only USMC F9F unit in Korea at the time, land based,
wouldn't have been operating with carrier based VF's, so this action would
have been VMF-311 alone.
-USMC F9F loss 7/21/52 attrib to AAA (like Tarshinov case maybe I thought?)
but pilot identifies himself on Korea Project website as being there in 52
not 51.
-Joe Baugher's data base of BuNo. sometimes has extra info on a/c fates
compared to KORWALD but saw nothing interesting about USMC F9F's
-The VMFA-311 squadron history (quoted in another source) says only 3 F9F's
were present (makes MiG claim strange).

Not a proof nor to over generalize but consider the AVG. It was often
written even long after that their claims were buttressed by crash or wreck
counting by allies in Burma and China, and might therefore even be
understatements but counting by Japanese loss records the claim support
ratio was only typical Western early WW-II (30-40%, Dan Ford's "Flying
Tigers", people criticized him saying Japanese loss records too were
systematically understated but Ford rebuts it in general terms that could be
applicable here too). Anyway second hand crash/wreck observation by allies
wasn't always reliable, though it does seem the ones you cite are fairly
specific.

Your basic point is right, saying just 1 Panther was downed by MiG is wrong
if the record is incomplete or wrong. Changing attributions simply because
the loss date correlates with other side's claims can be questioned, but
when individual cases can be examined at a greater level of detail
overturning the loss record can be the result.

Joe Brennan

Reference:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/
http://danford.net/loss.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diego Zampini" <dzampini@hotmail.com>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Cc: <jbren1@optonline.net>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Panther V Mig Redux


> Mr. Brennan:
>
> >Williams' Panther BuNo. 125459 suffered class damage code d-2, >restored
to
> >service. Your info means overall type score was: Panther >4, MiG 1,
> >admitted total loss each side. Easier than Saber-MIG!
>
> Certainly the Phanter pilots gain the upper hand in Nov 1950 and 1952, a
> testimony of his good training and skills.
> But from my point of view it is premature to establish the margin of
> superiority. On July 21 1951, when the MiG-15 pilot Boris Abakumov (196th
> IAP, 324th IAD) shot down the F9F of 1st Lt. Richard Bell (POW), several
> other Soviet pilots claimed kills, and despite I don't think 6 more kills
> were scored, I have serious reasons to believe that at least 2 more F9Fs
> were shot down that day (both by the MiG-15 of the unit's commander, Col.
> Yevgeni Pepelyayev). Apparently in both cases the wreckages were found
(with
> their pilots killed in their cockpit) and in one of them they found a
serial
> number: "109I405116". Such details are mentioned in the 1059 document of
> Cookie.
> Addittionaly, many F9F losses match in date with Soviet claims of 'F-84'
or
> 'F-80' kills (the Soviet pilots usually missidentified the Panthers with
> Thunderjets and Shooting Stars), and despite such losses are offically
> credited at flak fire or a failed pull after a bomb diving, it must be
noted
> that the loss of the F-84Es of Bernard Seitzinger on Oct.8 1951 and James
> Wills on Apr.12 1953 were originally credited to such causes, when they
were
> actually shot down by MiG-15 pilots (Col. Pepelyayev and Capt. Semyenov
> respectivelly). Similar circumstances could be told about Panther losses.
> Despite that, it is clear that the clear technical superiority of the
MiG-15
> against the Panther, regarding the key factor (pilots' skills) the Panther
> pilots had an edge against most of MiG pilots.
> Just my 2 cents,
> Diego Zampini.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Con MSN Hotmail súmese al servicio de correo electrónico más grande del
> mundo. http://www.hotmail.com/ES
>