Re: Korean War Aerial Losses and Claims - Interim Look

[<AMPSOne@aol.com>]

Joe,

Good post! Biggest problem is 50+ years on there is no way to sort out who's right and who's wrong in accounting procedures. All we can do is cite actual admissions and note ones that either are specious ("unknown loss to enemy action") or suspect ("Engine failure - bailed out over Gulf of Korea"). Same with the Soviets. They only counted a damaged aircraft as lost if it was irrepairable. (You don't need 26,000 personnel to support less than 300 fighter aircraft unless a LOT of them are doing repairs and rebuilding!) 

Biggest problem is the basic fact of life that if one side has 6 or 7 different types of fighters and the other essentially has one, no matter which way you cut it they are going to have impressive scores (unless flown by Iraqi pilots, but that's another war...) 

But it is the overall loss ratios which count, and that is much higher than we previously thought or knew. Trading three MiG-15s lost to Sabres for three B-29s shot down by MiGs is not a fair trade in anyone's book, especially the B-29 crews. 

I have to admit I grew up as a child of the 1950s with total faith in what was claimed, but then again my sources at age 5 were the 14-year-old kid down the street building wooden models of the aircraft in Korea and Charleton Comics. The reality of what happened was something of a surprise and a letdown...

Cookie Sewell
AMPS