gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,463
Likes: 11,175
|
Post by gillan1220 on May 27, 2024 15:10:02 GMT
No, that is the exact opposite of what I said. The Red Air Force had large numbers of aircraft, but they were not of comparable performance to the USAF across the board. The exception of the MiG-15 comes down to the silly gifting of the Nenes; when we compare other 1940s Soviet jets to the American counterparts, they don't line up well. The Russians lacked their own heavy bomber and only had a relative few B-29s copies, whereas the US had not only B-29s, but B-50s, B-36s and B-47s in service or right on the cusp thereof. A preponderance of Yak-9s and a few thousand Il-10s does not equal superiority. The USAF had the F-80s, F-84s and F-86s in comparison to ~610 gosh-awful MiG-9s and the -15s. USAF Bombers 1950B-17 Total 43 Active 43 AFR ANG B-25 Total 7 Active 7 AFR ANG B-26 Total 364 Active 77 AFR 89 ANG 198 B-29 Total 433 Active 433 AFR ANG B-36 Total 40 Active 40 AFR ANG B-45 Total 55 Active 55 AFR ANG B-50 Total 198 Active 198 AFR ANG USAF Fighter/Attack 1950:F-47 Total 577 Active 79 AFR ANG 498 F-51 Total 1,006 Active 99 AFR 85 ANG 907 F-80 Total 886 Active 773 AFR 1 ANG 112 F-82 Total 174 Active 174 AFR ANG F-84 Total 571 Active 286 AFR ANG 285 F-86 Total 403 Active 403 AFR ANG F-94 Total 7 Active 7 AFR ANG Would you like to hazard a guess why those numbers seem so small, and where the rest of the B-29s, for example, were at this point? Well, these opens up a new perspective. But of course the Soviet boogeyman was scary enough in 1950 so that's why the general public saw them as superior. Weren't the B-29s already slowly being phased out at this period for the B-36 and the B-47? I'm guessing the B-29s were in Tinian with some in Japan, Britain, or back home in Texas or Ohio. In a similar thread in the other forum: How far can the Soviets go in 1946-50? and World War III in 1948: Aftermath (US Victory)?
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 27, 2024 15:19:02 GMT
1.) No, the main amount of B-29s other than those in service were out in the deserts of Arizona and Nevada, along with some thousands of other planes. 2.) The general public did not see them as such, which is why the performance of the Mig-15 came as a shock; this then lead to the later over-estimation of Soviet aircraft numbers and performance 3.) Material from other forums, other discussions and other contexts can be of limited utility. Material from AH.com always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it is, at best, second hand. For example, one of your links cites purported 1948 SAC strength. Compare it to the 1950 inventories: USAF Recce 1950RB-17 Total 13 Active 13 AFR ANG RB-25 Total 3 Active 3 AFR ANG RB-26 Total 22 Active 22 AFR ANG RB-29 Total 134 Active 134 AFR ANG RB-36 Total 2 Active 2 AFR ANG RB-50 Total 13 Active 13 AFR ANG RC-45 Total 12 Active 12 AFR ANG RC-47 Total 5 Active 5 AFR ANG RC-54 Total 2 Active 2 RF-51 Total 15 Active AFR ANG 15 RF-80 Total 49 Active 49 AFR What you are better off doing is reading some primary source material from Forgotten Wars for SAC at the time. Additionally, there is this: secure.afa.org/Mitchell/reports/MS_TAI_1110.pdf It illustrates the rapid build up in response to Korea, particularly in fighters and bombers.
|
|
|
Post by American hist on May 27, 2024 23:32:50 GMT
My Grandpa retired naval aviation, captain Flew migs during the Cold War and is a Vietnam Veteran. He can note The Soviet Air Force had some good planes, but they didn’t know how to use them.
I believe he described That control tower would do a lot of the planning for them Rather than independently lead I’ll make sure to verify next time I call him.
The Americans have the superior Air Force, which we could reduce the level Interception By striking first. I wonder when were the first airplanes to fly over the north pole from Russia to the United States? I’m not an expert on aviation But who would be more more likely be able to fly such a distance, the Americans or the Soviet On a regular basis?
In this post, I’m talking about my grandpa on my mom side. He knew someone who died in the Korean War. Also, I’m not an expert on nuclear missiles, but During the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 The Americans had a higher number of long range missiles. One of the big reasons the Cuban missile crisis was so important was because the Soviets could send their short range misses to Cuba where they’re in strike distance of America. My uncle Chuck Said promise me you’ll get me from school if there is a nuclear Armando he was only in kindergarten.
Perhaps it’s even weirder the whole red menace, cultural phenomenon Is that America agreed to an armistice in the Korean War Later switch to extremely weird counter culture movement. Granted in America, we’re a bunch of hippies
Both of my great uncle served, in that war .
|
|
|
Post by American hist on May 28, 2024 4:08:59 GMT
Although in the Korean War the soviet airforce detachment had a favorable 1:1 ratio against American jets
|
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,463
Likes: 11,175
|
Post by gillan1220 on May 28, 2024 12:28:09 GMT
1.) No, the main amount of B-29s other than those in service were out in the deserts of Arizona and Nevada, along with some thousands of other planes. 2.) The general public did not see them as such, which is why the performance of the Mig-15 came as a shock; this then lead to the later over-estimation of Soviet aircraft numbers and performance 3.) Material from other forums, other discussions and other contexts can be of limited utility. Material from AH.com always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it is, at best, second hand. 1. Very well. I thought the U.S. had B-29s elsewhere such as in Japan or Britain. 2. Because the fact that the Soviets were more or less in technological parity with the U.S. would mean that both is trying to outcompete the other. 3. Fair enough, but at least gives ideas for the numbers at the time. Sadly, most are lost to time. What you are better off doing is reading some primary source material from Forgotten Wars for SAC at the time. Additionally, there is this: secure.afa.org/Mitchell/reports/MS_TAI_1110.pdf It illustrates the rapid build up in response to Korea, particularly in fighters and bombers. Thanks for this. Interesting material to read on. My Grandpa retired naval aviation, captain Flew migs during the Cold War and is a Vietnam Veteran. He can note The Soviet Air Force had some good planes, but they didn’t know how to use them. I believe he described That control tower would do a lot of the planning for them Rather than independently lead I’ll make sure to verify next time I call him. The Americans have the superior Air Force, which we could reduce the level Interception By striking first. I wonder when were the first airplanes to fly over the north pole from Russia to the United States? I’m not an expert on aviation But who would be more more likely be able to fly such a distance, the Americans or the Soviet On a regular basis? In this post, I’m talking about my grandpa on my mom side. He knew someone who died in the Korean War. Also, I’m not an expert on nuclear missiles, but During the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 The Americans had a higher number of long range missiles. One of the big reasons the Cuban missile crisis was so important was because the Soviets could send their short range misses to Cuba where they’re in strike distance of America. My uncle Chuck Said promise me you’ll get me from school if there is a nuclear Armando he was only in kindergarten. Perhaps it’s even weirder the whole red menace, cultural phenomenon Is that America agreed to an armistice in the Korean War Later switch to extremely weird counter culture movement. Granted in America, we’re a bunch of hippies Both of my great uncle served, in that war . I'm interested in your family's military history. Going back, even if the USAF was more superior than the VVS, people at that time were overestimating the Soviets because it was the scary boogeyman trying to spread communism to the globe. The fact too they still have 2 million troops across the Iron Curtain and the fact the USSR was still allied with the PRC at this period. This alliance was there even though Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong hated each other. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. placed Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy, which too could reach the Soviet Union before it got detected. The same for the Soviets deploying their missiles in Cuba since those missiles had the range of the entire CONUS save for Seattle in the northwest. Although in the Korean War the soviet airforce detachment had a favorable 1:1 ratio against American jets Like I said, the U.S. was more or less in parity with the Soviets (who were flying missions alongside their Chinese and North Korean allies) when it came from F-86s vs. MiG-15s.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 28, 2024 12:28:44 GMT
The generally accepted Western number is 10:1, based on 792 MiGs for 76 Sabres.
|
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,463
Likes: 11,175
|
Post by gillan1220 on May 28, 2024 12:31:35 GMT
The generally accepted Western number is 10:1, based on 792 MiGs for 76 Sabres. Woah it's bigger than I thought. No wonder why those MiG-15s were overestimated.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 28, 2024 12:35:53 GMT
Gillan, once again, you are drawing the exact opposite conclusion to what the data indicates:
- The Soviets did not have technological parity, not in the Bomb and not in aircraft - Most numbers aren’t lost to time - this isn’t the Mayan Collapse, but recorded 20th century history. The data is in the links, in the primary sources and available. I’d suggest reading up on it, as this isn’t the first occasion where you’ve drawn the wrong inference from statements because of an initial position based on faulty premises
Rather than commenting in a very assured fashion that the US was in ‘parity’ with the Soviets, hit the books and find out how and why they decidedly were not. That is the best way to ‘flesh out’ your understanding of the Korean War and early Cold War period.
|
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,463
Likes: 11,175
|
Post by gillan1220 on May 28, 2024 12:55:40 GMT
Gillan, once again, you are drawing the exact opposite conclusion to what the data indicates: - The Soviets did not have technological parity, not in the Bomb and not in aircraft - Most numbers aren’t lost to time - this isn’t the Mayan Collapse, but recorded 20th century history. The data is in the links, in the primary sources and available. I’d suggest reading up on it, as this isn’t the first occasion where you’ve drawn the wrong inference from statements because of an initial position based on faulty premises Rather than commenting in a very assured fashion that the US was in ‘parity’ with the Soviets, hit the books and find out how and why they decidedly were not. That is the best way to ‘flesh out’ your understanding of the Korean War and early Cold War period. If they weren't technological parity then yes. It's that Soviet numbers were something to be feared. But the U.S. also had lapses. For one, their early warning networks around the U.S. mainland was crap or non-existent. So attacks - either air raids or nuclear bombings - on cities like Chicago, Detroit, and New York had lapses. The Pinetree line could only detect once Soviet bombers were already near U.S. airspace. The Mid-Canada Line established in the mid-1950s was improvement to that, but there more improvement needed. Which finally resulted in the DEW Line later on. But I have yet to read what SAM systems the U.S. had at this period. Similary, what did France, Britain, Japan, and South Korea have to protect against REDFOR bombers.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 28, 2024 13:24:03 GMT
Drifting a fair bit away from the particulars of Korea to a broader Cold War inquiry here.
If you have yet to read on something, then there is a solution - read. That would inform you that Nike Ajax was in the pipeline, and in the interim, there was a plethora of 90mm, 120mm and 75mm gun defences. There are whole monographs on air defence alone out there, disregarding those hidden behind JSTOR and paywalls.
As a start on the early Cold War, Operation Dropshot is available online in full, I believe.
|
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,463
Likes: 11,175
|
Post by gillan1220 on May 28, 2024 13:36:26 GMT
Drifting a fair bit away from the particulars of Korea to a broader Cold War inquiry here. If you have yet to read on something, then there is a solution - read. That would inform you that Nike Ajax was in the pipeline, and in the interim, there was a plethora of 90mm, 120mm and 75mm gun defences. There are whole monographs on air defence alone out there, disregarding those hidden behind JSTOR and paywalls. As a start on the early Cold War, Operation Dropshot is available online in full, I believe. In regards to conventional escalation of the Korean War itself, not only would the Soviets be bombing ports, bases, and air fields in South Korea and Japan but they could try limited raids on Alaska, Canada, and the mainland U.S. as a whole just like what the Japanese in WWII did.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 28, 2024 14:04:08 GMT
Were I thirty years younger, I might respond to that with the Futurama clip of “Windmills do not work that way! Good night!”
Instead: Those are some of the very precursors that would escalate to a nuclear response, with all that entails for the USSR. The Soviets lacked the long range aircraft, the experience in their operation, the weapons, the navigation systems and the numbers to really have a go, on top of the profound US nuclear advantage.
|
|