| Harold, I'm trying to figure out what your point is but so far am not absorbing it. I worked with Xiaoming on his book and while the Soviets kept very good records on their losses and claims, the Chinese were bigger on absolutes and not very good on details. I also mentioned to him that they may have done "NKVD Math" or cut their losses by 50% while multiplying their clams by a factor of 4 or 5. The Soviets lost at least 357 aircraft which can be accounted for by day/date/time and pilot involved, and a good number of those even have the claiming pilot credited (per Seidov and German). But as Joe Brennan and I have been discussing on this group, most of their claims -- between 75% and 90%, depending upon whose definitions one uses for "air to air loss" -- are just that, and not validated. Likewise, about 20-30% of the US ones seem to be exaggerated, especially early in the war when both sides essentially had their "A" team in there. >From what you describe and what the Soviets (and now Russian historians) wrote about it, it doesn't seem to match up well with WWII combat operations. They had many of the same problems we did in learning the ropes of jet combat, and while most of the "basics" are the same -- cover your wingman, close in before firing, get on his tail, use your advantages and play to his weaknesses -- it doesn't match with the description of WWII combat. One of the main problems the Soviets faced was life at 7 g with no G suits, which tended to either fatigue or cripple pilots and render them invalids in 100-150 missions. If you physically can't take it, you can't get the most from your machine. Other than the single pass and run for home tactic used in Vietnam by the VPAF, that doesn't help if you need to stay and fight to repulse fighters and fighter-bombers. They also suffered badly with new pilots, who they all cite as not being aggressive enough and trying to use their heavier weapons at long range to kill small targets like fighters and fighter-bombers. Their aces (numbers vary as to how many with a high of 63 being given in extreme cases, but probably about 7-10 honest ones) all closed to near point-blank range before firing with the exception of engaging hapless B-29s. The Soviets were not very charitable towards the Chinese, and apparently held them in low esteem (unofficially) and had no use whatsover for the North Koreans, who they rarely mentioned at all. The "Unified Air Army" of PLAAF/KPAFAC pilots is usually just referred to as "the Chinese air forces." I give Xiaoming high marks for being the first one to take a stab at this, but when the source doesn't want to cooperate (something like my asking the CAFH for their losses in Korea eight years ago and being stiffed; were it not for DPMO we probably would never have seen how bad they really were) you can't really blame the messenger. Cookie Sewell AMPS PS Are you are a Russian linguist? Curious as you keep putting the Russian terms in text into non-Russian terms, such as "pulk" for regiment. The correct Russian word is "Polk" (as in Polkovnik for colonel or "regimental commander"). |