[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Book review: Red Wings Over the Yalu: China, the Soviet Union and the Ai...



張文兄:
 
對不起又來麻煩你。下面是有關戴維斯被擊落當天另一架受損的
F86E的資料,在KORWALD中列為 Damaged during encounter with
MiGs  and a loss,但在 Thompson & McLaren 的 MiG Alley 中列在
06/24/1953 失事,飛行員 Jackson,理由 Mechanical / Burnout。
 
照這樣看來,Doug Evans 所述當天除了他和戴維斯兩對四架飛機
外沒有人與米格機碰頭似乎有點不正確。不知道對這架飛機有沒
有更詳盡的紀錄,看是在哪種狀況下受傷的?
 
Thanks
 
Light
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu [mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Joe Brennan
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:45 PM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Book review: Red Wings Over the Yalu: China, the Soviet Union and the Ai...

Cookie,
 
F-86E 50-645 wasn't lost this day (lost June 24, 1953 in an accident) but hit with a single, probably 23mm, shell in the right horizontal stabilizer, requiring replacement of the stabilizer and elevator assembly. One thing I've found "looking under the hood" of Korwald is for F86's when it says "damaged" and doesn't specifically say lost, it was almost always repaired (for B-29's there are a higher % of damaged planes not returned to service but still most were). Also not all damage incidents are in K (virtually all outright losses are) and the day of the month is not always reliable for damage (though this one
seems correct). Thompson/McLaren "MiG Alley" apendices are a better source for F-86 fates than Korwald IMO, though a few mysteries remain in their entries too, and they don't cover non-loss damage.
 
However the existence of another damaged a/c tends to contradict Evan's (usually reliable I've found) statement that only his pair and Davis met any MiG's at all on Feb 10, since he doesn't mention damage.
 
The reason I lean to the Chinese claim is more at the detail level of each of the 3 accounts, the Russian one (Red Devils account as related by Zhang) doesn't seem to describe the Davis combat, while the American and Chinese ones seem to come closer to describing the same combat, albeit still with signficant discrepancies. For the Russian one to work one has to assume they came upon Davis and Littlefield (his wingman) attacking Chinese MiG's and the times and Littlefield's account seem to weigh against this; he says Davis was downed by MiG's they both saw that were already in the formation they attacked before they attacked it.
 
Joe
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Book review: Red Wings Over the Yalu: China, the Soviet Union and the Ai...

Joe,

I have problems with this as well. The basic facts are these:

Two Chinese MiGs from the 12th Aviation Regiment, 4th Aviation Division, were shot down with one pilot KIA and one who bailed out.

Officially the USAF credited Davis with two kills.

The Soviets claimed two F-86s shot down on that date.

KORWALD lists F-86E aircraft # 50-645 and #51-2752 (Davis) as shot down on that date.

One can argue the case that it works out better towards the Soviet claim than the Chinese one, based strictly on the "Who shot John" claims. ((Side question: who was flying 50-645?  He was rescued and nobody so far seems to have a name, but that could help sort things out a lot.))

Cookie Sewell
AMPS