----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 6:08
AM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill
tallies
Dear Cookie and all,
I have followed this thread with some interest and must state
again that almost every AF aerial claims were overstated. Be that as it
may, it must also be stated that comparing a single loss to a claim is an
almost impossibility for any war. But there are some very noted examples of
individual single claims that can be verified. It must also be stated, that
for the most part, that official loss records cannot be absolutely be used as
final proof, as even the German loss records of WW-II have glaring
holes in them for different periods of the war.
But the Korean question still boils down to the fact that the US was not
committed to a victory on the ground or in the air, but rather a return to the
status quo. As such, and the same was wanted in Moscow as well so as to tie up
American interests away from Europe, Korea was only ever used by the US and
Moscow as a bleeding ground for the other side. And for that purpose alone, to
draw any conclusions about who won or lost would have to then be viewed about
how the US allowed itself to react in and toward Taiwan, Vietnam and in
NATO.
Certain things can be ascertained about the aerial victories in Korea.
NATO, as even today, is only interested in short term European interests.
Korea is still a hot bed of claims and threats from the North, and there is
still no clear road to peace.
It can also be stated that the Korean conflict did cause a significant
drain on Russian aerial production capabilities. The Lagg-15 and MiG-9s were
relegated to almost complete obscurity for battlefield use, and also ate
up precious production line capabilities. And the MiGs were clearly only a
match for the F-86s if backed-up by a clearly superior pilot, irrespective of
how the Chinese or NK want to interpret history. China was clearly blunted in
its ambitions to drive the US from Korea and from Taiwan, and a serious dent
was put into Russia's production capability to fight a lasting war of
attrition against the US, on the ground or in the air.
If nothing else was learned in Moscow, it was that they did not have
enough WW-II veterans to match the US in a protracted aerial war, and
that they also knew that any future war was not going to be like anything
that they had experienced in WW-II against the Germans.
Contrary to many
individuals thoughts out there, the Germans could never have won the was
against Russia during WW-II, their strategic capability in steel and oil
production was just never there. [rbmooney's
emphasis followed by comment].
HAROLD: "I profoundly disagree. Let me
mention something IKE and Bradley alluded to so often when the endless
question surfaced about defeating the Germans, and do note that I'm
paraphrasing: When it takes the whole world to defeat an enemy they never
convince that enemy that he has been beaten. Never. If a gang of
thugs takes a whole day to beat up one innocent passerby, what do you think
will happen to any one of those thugs when he meets the once-battered passerby
on a dark street? The thug is going to get his ass whipped that's
what. Today, Germany "rules" Europe financially! They even rule
the U.S. financially! In fairness to the other countries of the EU, none
of them wants American paper dollars anymore. Worse, a trade war is now
underway by the EU against the U.S.! One can only assume that if war is
?politics by other means then politics is war by other means.' We can't
even whip a handful of terrorists in IRAQ and yet we have all the resources
here to destroy the world! Three nuclear submarines could do the job in
two or three hours in one afternoon! We also have enough oil where
Germany didn't because Hitler was so dumb that he petulantly attacked
Stalingrad though General von Paulus-- Hitler's key planner of
Barbarossa (the German invasion of the Soviet Union) was adamantly against
it! Though von Paulus was commander of the 6th Army in January 1942
(which operated on the Eastern Front in the Caucasus area) he successfully
captured all of Kharkov in May, but reluctantly moved his
summer-clothed army towards Stalingrad in the coldest weather the SU had had
and would ever experience. In October 1942, he had captured most of the
city, but within 2 months of bitter ugly fighting in sub-zero weather
Barbarossa had failed. Had Adolph not given such a stupid order
as to turn von Paulus North, instead of as planned in Barbarossa to the South,
(Hitler hated Stalin and thus hated Stalingrad!) which had nothing to do with
defeating the SU, the SU would have collapsed in several months.
Hitler's Generals begged him to move immediately towards the oil fields in the
South and capture them. (Two years later our General Patton was stealing
fuel from the Brits to keep his tanks moving towards Berlin!).
Nevertheless, the Balkan oil fields would have fallen into Germans hands as
Barbarossa was designed to effect (except for the insane Hitler's
petulance) intact! The American Southern Civil war General, Nathan
Beford Forrest, would have by-passed Stalingrad and captured the oil fields in
one heroic push southward. The SU would have been whistling in a
graveyard! But General von Paulus lost his Army at Stalingrad and the
oil fields remained in the SU's hands. Finally, I've never read or heard
of any General on either side of the 2nd WW question who thought of Normandy
as being the end for Germany! Such and idea was never advanced by any
Allied General, according to Stephen Ambrose and other top writer's of 2nd WW
actions and activities. Simply the crossing of the Channel was feat
enough. IKE signed a pre-release letter to his bosses in Washington to
the effect that if the Normandy Invasion failed it is "my fault
alone." Normandy could easily have meant the death of the West, if the
right German Generals had dominated the last two years of the 2nd WW.
Sixty million people died in the 2nd WW and 10 million were Germans. But
let me return momentarily to what I hinted at above about the American South's
greatest General: Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was the greatest
strategist, tactician, and General of Southern soldiers in the Civil
War. His victories dominate all other conquests by both the North and
the South's great leaders and Generals. Ironically, he was a non-West
Point grad who entered the war formally uneducated--but became in 2
years the South's one warrior every Northern General and Lincoln feared in the
most!. Had General von Paulus possessed the guts and moral
courage as General Nathan Bedford Forrests owned in spades, he would have done
what Forrest did when General Braxton Bragg tried to suppress Forrest's
growing record of successes in every battle by transferring Forrest to a
weaker General's camp: von Paulus would have traveled to Bragg's headquarters
to "personally beat the hell out of Bragg for issuing stupid and potentially
fatal orders to our side." With the right leaders and more common sense
planning (don't shoot the surrendering Russian peasants! Adopt them!)
the Germans could have won the war in 2 or 3 years. They were light
years ahead of the so-called Western World technologically and in
dedication. Had they NOT been foolishly led by a maniac and his
syncophants we'd all be speaking German today."
But the US was something else for the Russians to think about. Moscow
could interpret aerial losses and claims from both sides just as well as
Washington. One thing was clear to Uncle Joe, he just could not afford to
continue losing MiGs as fast as the US could shoot them down. And if the
Chinese could not interpret aerial losses equally well, why did not they send
any of their numerous MiG-9s down to Vietnam or their southern airfields to
threaten that area in 1954? To do so would have brought a response from the
USN navy carriers that they knew were there just in case of such an
eventuality.
I think that it is a very rewarding venture to try and establish
individual loss/claims on both sides of any conflict, but to get too close to
such an issue can be very much like trying to establish which British archer
killed such and such French nobleman at Augencourt. The French lost to tactics
and to technical superiority of the English long-bow to French armor. So too
in Korea, American tactics and material production capabilities just
outspent the Moscow/Beijing/Pyongyang will for a proletariat victory in the
air or on the ground. The jungles on SE-Asia were too much of a match for
anything that America could, or would be willing, to commit.
Harold Stockton
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:55
AM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill
tallies
There is no
prize on either side for making the enemy assessment of effectiveness any
easier.
Inspire
28
That's true, but in many other cases the Russians are starting to be
brutally honest about how things really were. A recent study just proved
that Prokhorovka -- one of the legendary battles of WWII and according to
the Soviets the biggest single tank battle in history -- was not the
crushing defeat on the Germans the Soviets claimed. They found out they lost
over 700 tanks out of about 750 involved, whereas the Germans only lost 400
out of 600. But at the end of the day, the Germans ran out of fuel and ammo,
which forced a withdrawal.
The jury is still out on Korea.
Cookie Sewell
AMPS