11
   

So we are back to the Cold War again?

 
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2018 02:22 am
@georgeob1,
I know far less about the development of jet fighters and fighter-bombers, but am just as interested. A lot of this is, as you mentioned earlier, conditioned by tactical doctrine. For example, the Sturmovik was not originally designed as a "tank killer," But they developed a technique of coming in echelon, four, six or ten aircraft, to clear out the infantry (tanks cannot advance for long without infantry support) and then they'd swing back and attack from the rear, where the German armor was vulnerable. Later, they developed the first cluster munitions, because the deck armor of the Tigers and Panthers was thin. They'd open up the "dispensers" and drop hundreds of bomblets on the German armor. You didn't care if 99 missed, as long as one hit. Improved tactical doctrine lead to improvement in the weapons systems, which lead to new improvements in tactical doctrine. Stalin became obsessive about the Il-2 Sturmovik, and factory managers who fell behind in production were literally taken outside and shot.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2018 02:29 am
Here's a Russian first (Ukrainian, actually). Lydia Litvyak was the first woman to shoot down an enemy aircraft, one of the first two female aces. Her career was short, but spectacular.

https://warthunder.ru/upload/image/history/2.jpeg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2018 11:34 am
@Setanta,
The pace of aircraft development varies a good deal, with periodic spurts of activity & the introduction of new models, arising from national rivalries and the introduction of new technologies. The early phases of post WWII jet aircraft development from the late 1940s to 1965 were such period, as was the decade leading into WWII. In each, all the nations involved learned from their mistakes, and often those of others. One result has been that aggressor nations often froze new model developments, at their war's onset,in favor of production, leaving themselves a bit outmatched by the new aircraft deployments of their foes, who had no choices, after the wars started. We have discussed the initial advantages of the Japanese in WWII, which were reversed by new U,S aircraft (such as the F6F) deployed almost two years after war began. A somewhat similar situation occurred in the UK-German conflict with the late British introduction of the Spitfire, which was marginally ( but sufficiently ) superior to the bf109 to turn the tide in the Battle of Britain.

The cost of new aircraft development has of necessity reduced the frequency of new aircraft development and significantly extended the service lives of the aircraft produced. The ubiquitous C-130 was introduced in the late 1950s ( same for the B-52); the USAF F-16 & USN FA-18 both date to the mid 1970s; etc.

Thanks for interesting the photo of Lydia. She looked the part and was an attractive woman as well.

Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2018 03:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Just to change the topic slightly to Europe and something I'm a bit educated (by personal experiences) about:
All Russian Intelligence Ships.

My only tools were a Leica and Weyers Warships of the World.
https://i.imgur.com/gnYnpdPl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/sKjiI10.jpg

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2018 02:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
https://i.imgur.com/LFuB05sl.jpg

That notice was used in states of Hesse and Bavaria (both in the USA-zone) until 1990
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2018 07:17 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Where are you getting figures for the percentage of Soviet pilots?

Right here.
Quote:
According to Budiansky, "In late March 1951, the 1st RSM (1st Radio Squadron, Mobile), still operating in Japan, picked up Russian ground controllers in voice communication with Soviet MiG fighter aircraft operating over North Korea. This became an "intelligence windfall", because "Soviet doctrine called for tight control of fighters by stations on the ground tracking the location of friendly and enemy aircraft on radar throughout the battle." These radio intercepts gave additional warning beyond the range of radar. This breakthrough in signals intelligence, centralized at a single USAFSS facility in Seoul, meant real-time listening of Russian controllers and fighters and the subsequent passing of information to U.S. pilots. "An analysis of ground control traffic in June 1952 concluded that more than 90 percent of MiGs engaged in air operations over North Korea were being flown by Russians."

So there's your answer. At least 90 percent were flown by Russian pilots. And the MiGs still got shellacked by American planes flown by American pilots.

Quote:
That is incorrect. Highly trained Soviet pilots were a match for American pilots.
Maybe if you took the best of the Russian pilots, sent them to the USAF training facility, and fixed them up with an American plane. Otherwise, forget about it-the Russians piloting Russian planes were much more likely to be shot down by an American fighter than shoot down an American fighter. Sheesh. How many times do I have to post this chart?
https://i.imgur.com/KLDeCy5.jpg?1

Quote:
Condemning Barack Obama for deliberately sabotaging the US armed forces is not grasping at straws.
"Sabotaging US forces" by continuing the development of the fifth generation F-35, a plane which leaves the Russians behind on both air-to-air and air-to-ground attack. Face it, we have a much better plane, but you figured that by complaining about the F-22 cutback you can cover for the way Trump is doing his best to weaken NATO.

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 06:41 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Right here.
Quote:
According to Budiansky, "In late March 1951, the 1st RSM (1st Radio Squadron, Mobile), still operating in Japan, picked up Russian ground controllers in voice communication with Soviet MiG fighter aircraft operating over North Korea. This became an "intelligence windfall", because "Soviet doctrine called for tight control of fighters by stations on the ground tracking the location of friendly and enemy aircraft on radar throughout the battle." These radio intercepts gave additional warning beyond the range of radar. This breakthrough in signals intelligence, centralized at a single USAFSS facility in Seoul, meant real-time listening of Russian controllers and fighters and the subsequent passing of information to U.S. pilots. "An analysis of ground control traffic in June 1952 concluded that more than 90 percent of MiGs engaged in air operations over North Korea were being flown by Russians."
So there's your answer. At least 90 percent were flown by Russian pilots.
It appears that the Soviets added a lot of rookies to their squads in 1952:

Summarizing, the Russian aces dominated the struggle for air superiority over "MiG Alley" in the April 1951-January 1952 period, and earned the respect of their Americans adversaries (the nicknames "Honcho" and "Casey Jones"). From February 1952, when the crack pilots of the 303rd and 324th IAD were largely replaced by rookies, the Sabre pilots ruled over "MiG Alley," and the well-trained US pilots kept the edge until the end of the war. It during this later phase that the tallies of the greatest US Aces -Joseph McConnell, James Jabara and Manuel Fernández Jr. - began to rise quickly. But even then, there were Russian MiG-15 pilots who proved to be dangerous adversaries, like Nikolai Ivanov and Semen Fedorets.

http://acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html

Blickers wrote:
And the MiGs still got shellacked by American planes flown by American pilots.
The ones flown by highly skilled pilots didn't.

Blickers wrote:
Maybe if you took the best of the Russian pilots, sent them to the USAF training facility, and fixed them up with an American plane. Otherwise, forget about it-the Russians piloting Russian planes were much more likely to be shot down by an American fighter than shoot down an American fighter.
That is incorrect. The best Soviet pilots were incredibly lethal to American pilots, without receiving American training, and while flying in Russian planes.

Blickers wrote:
Sheesh. How many times do I have to post this chart?
The chart has little to do with highly-trained and highly-skilled Soviet pilots.

Blickers wrote:
"Sabotaging US forces" by continuing the development of the fifth generation F-35, a plane which leaves the Russians behind on both air-to-air and air-to-ground attack.
A plane with no air-to-air ability whatsoever is not going to leave anyone behind in air superiority.

Blickers wrote:
Face it, we have a much better plane,
A plane with no air-to-air capability is hardly better as an air superiority fighter.

Blickers wrote:
but you figured that by complaining about the F-22 cutback you can cover for the way Trump is doing his best to weaken NATO.
I condemn Barack Obama's treason because I disapprove of treason.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 11:55 am
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
It appears that the Soviets added a lot of rookies to their squads in 1952:
Now why would the Russians do that, if their aces were supposedly shooting our fighters down left and right?

Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down? I mean, why would they get rid of their experienced pilots to make way for rookies-does that make sense?

Now here is a quote from your own link which casts doubt on all these Russian "aces":
Quote:
How could they do this, when all the American aces in that same period (Ralph Gibson, Dick Becker, etc) could only score 5-6 MiG kills? (except for the intrepid Major George A. Davis, who was credited with 14 kills) As a group, were the Russians 2-3 times better fighter pilots than their American opponents, as the claimed scores of 15 vs. 5 might imply? Not at all. Despite the secrecy surrounding Soviet operations in Korea and the lack of need to inflate the tally for propaganda purposes, several factors helped overstate Russian scores:

Many Soviet medium and high-ranking officers wanted to gain favour with the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (well known for killing or deporting Soviet generals who failed in accomplish his wishes), and one way to do so was to inflate the score of the MiG regiments in Korea.


The Soviet pilots earn 1,500 additional rubles for every air victory they were credited with. It is quite likely that there were many false claims, just for the money.

The gun camera images of the MiG-15 were of such poor quality, that the Russian gun camera analysts decided that if a US plane appeared in a pic, then they would credit a "kill," even when they did not notice shell strikes, smoke, or an ejection.

If we add to such factors the usual over-claiming -in good faith, but over-claiming in the end- of any war, then we can understand why the Soviet 64th IAK claimed the unbelievable figure of 1,106 UN aircraft destroyed in the Korean War. (532 of them in the "Honcho Period," when only 142 Allied aircraft were actually downed by the Soviet MiG-15 pilots). So, many of those scores must be seen with a lot of skepticism,


Your own link is telling you not to take your own figures seriously. To the Russians, war casualty reports are just a branch of the propaganda effort, we see this even today with Russia trying to claim the Ukrainian government shot down the Malaysian plane flying over the Russian supported militia's territory.

Besides which, I do not accept-nor would anyone sane accept-simply totalling up some scores of some selected "aces" as proving one side got the better of things. You have to take the total score, and take it from reliable sources. The Russian sources are not reliable, even your own reference says so. So you have no evidence for your claim that the Russians in Russian planes are anywhere near as good as the Americans in American planes. History has proven over and over, they are not.

Here's the goddamn chart again. Wrap your mind around it, and accept reality, your flimsy excuses don't stand up to the chart.
https://i.imgur.com/KLDeCy5.jpg?1

Now that this has been settled, your attempt to claim Obama has hurt the US military by ending the F-22 production but continuing development of the F-35, a plane Russia despises because they have no answer for it-also goes down the drain. If you really want to see a president hurting national security, take a look at Trump following Putin's preferred foreign policy wishes and causing discord in NATO, the alliance which has kept Russia at bay since the end of WWII.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 01:23 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Now why would the Russians do that, if their aces were supposedly shooting our fighters down left and right?
I'm not familiar enough with the history of that war. Perhaps they wanted greater numbers. Perhaps their aces were experiencing war fatigue.

Blickers wrote:
Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down?
No.

Blickers wrote:
Your own link is telling you not to take your own figures seriously.
That is incorrect. It is saying to not take the inflated Soviet claims seriously. It is not saying to disregard the actual confirmed Soviet aces.

Blickers wrote:
Besides which, I do not accept-nor would anyone sane accept-simply totalling up some scores of some selected "aces" as proving one side got the better of things.
The existence of Soviet aces proves that a highly skilled enemy pilot can be a lethal threat to American pilots.

Blickers wrote:
The Russian sources are not reliable, even your own reference says so. So you have no evidence for your claim that the Russians in Russian planes are anywhere near as good as the Americans in American planes.
I have the Soviet aces that are actually confirmed by historians.

Blickers wrote:
History has proven over and over, they are not.
That is incorrect. History proves that Soviet aces were quite lethal to American pilots.

Blickers wrote:
Here's the goddamn chart again. Wrap your mind around it, and accept reality, your flimsy excuses don't stand up to the chart.
A chart that has nothing to do with Soviet aces, has nothing to do with Soviet aces.

Blickers wrote:
Now that this has been settled, your attempt to claim Obama has hurt the US military by ending the F-22 production but continuing development of the F-35, a plane Russia despises because they have no answer for it-also goes down the drain.
That is incorrect. Obama did grave damage to the US military when he deprived it of air-superiority fighters.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 05:14 pm
@oralloy,
Quote Blickers:
Quote:
Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down?

Quote
Quote:
No.

Yes, obviously, that's the reason. The Russian records "prove" the aces were shooting down American jets piloted by Americans, but the same source that gave you this information admits that the Soviet records on shoot-downs was off by some 400%.

Besides which, when you compare how well one side did in any conflict, you take the damage one side did to the other, and decide which is greater. Your cockamamie method says throw up the records of their best few pilots, and if their best few pilots shot down more than the American pilots, that means the Russians got the better of it. That makes about as much sense as judging a football team's offense by them bragging their best receiver scored 12 touchdowns. Which is pretty nice for one player, but if those 12 touchdowns constitute all or most of your scoring that season, then you are a horribly low scoring team.

Compound that with the fact the Russian records are woefully inaccurate, stated so by the very same source you obtained these "records" in the first place, and what you have on your hands is a complete mess. Matters are not helped by the fact that Russian accounts of planes shot down remain propagandistic nonsense even today, and your argument falls down further, hard as that is to do.

So now that is taken care of, I think it is safe to say that most sane readers will understand that if the Korean War record is what you base your claims on Russian equality in air power, then your claim remains ridiculous.

What is not ridiculous, however, is the F-35 which after numerous delays is the only fifth generation aircraft out there and which puts the Russian aircraft to shame. It's unfortunate that you have to run down America's finest plane-a technical marvel-in order to try to push Russian propaganda about the capabilites of their cheap knock-off aircraft, but apparently that is where your arguments have left you. Better you than I.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 06:04 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Blickers wrote:
Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down?
No.
Yes, obviously, that's the reason.
Historical records are very clear. In the pre-1952 period it was the American pilots who were being shot down.

Blickers wrote:
The Russian records "prove" the aces were shooting down American jets piloted by Americans, but the same source that gave you this information admits that the Soviet records on shoot-downs was off by some 400%.
ALL records show that Russian aces were quite lethal to American pilots.

Blickers wrote:
Besides which, when you compare how well one side did in any conflict, you take the damage one side did to the other, and decide which is greater. Your cockamamie method says throw up the records of their best few pilots, and if their best few pilots shot down more than the American pilots, that means the Russians got the better of it.
No. It means that American pilots are not magical supermen, and it is possible for them to be bested by a skilled enemy.

Blickers wrote:
That makes about as much sense as judging a football team's offense by them bragging their best receiver scored 12 touchdowns. Which is pretty nice for one player, but if those 12 touchdowns constitute all or most of your scoring that season, then you are a horribly low scoring team.
Do you think the Chinese Air Force is only training 5% of their pilots?

Blickers wrote:
Compound that with the fact the Russian records are woefully inaccurate, stated so by the very same source you obtained these "records" in the first place, and what you have on your hands is a complete mess. Matters are not helped by the fact that Russian accounts of planes shot down remain propagandistic nonsense even today, and your argument falls down further, hard as that is to do.
My argument has never relied on taking Russian records at face value. I've always relied only on the aces that historians agree are legitimate.

Blickers wrote:
So now that is taken care of, I think it is safe to say that most sane readers will understand that if the Korean War record is what you base your claims on Russian equality in air power, then your claim remains ridiculous.
The Korean War shows quite clearly that it is possible for a well-trained enemy pilot to shoot down lots of American pilots.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2018 06:09 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
What is not ridiculous, however, is the F-35 which after numerous delays is the only fifth generation aircraft out there and which puts the Russian aircraft to shame.
A plane with no ability to shoot down other aircraft doesn't put anything at all to shame.

Not to mention the fact that the F-35 isn't the only fifth generation aircraft out there. And I suspect that the Chinese J-20 is actually capable of shooting down other aircraft.

Blickers wrote:
It's unfortunate that you have to run down America's finest plane-a technical marvel
It's unfortunate that the F-35 is incapable of shooting down other aircraft.

Blickers wrote:
-in order to try to push Russian propaganda about the capabilites of their cheap knock-off aircraft, but apparently that is where your arguments have left you. Better you than I.
I have not relied on Russian propaganda anywhere in my arguments.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2018 01:33 pm
Vladimir Putin’s old East German secret police ("Stasi") identification card has been discovered in the Stasi archives.

The card for “Major Wladimir Putin” was discovered among Soviet-era personnel files in Dresden, where Putin served as a KGB officer in the 1980s. It bore stamps and was validated through 1989.

https://i.imgur.com/ON8eMsil.jpg

The Kremlin confirmed that the card has been issued to Putin as part of an inter-agency agreement between the Stasi and the KGB.

Previously published Stasi materials on Putin included generally mundane details, including the fact that he arrived in Dresden in August 1985, that his wife and daughter came to the country in the autumn of the same year, that they lived in an ordinary apartment on Radeberger Straße 101, and that the Putins' second daughter was born in Dresden in 1986. Putin was also said to have been a member of a local fishing club, to have driven a Lada Zhiguli sedan, and to have enjoyed Radeberger beer, a local brew, at Zum Thor, his favourite pub.

The former chief of Dresden's Stasi Records Agency, Konrad Felber, commented on the alleged find that "it was hitherto completely unknown that Putin, who worked until 1990 as a KGB agent in Dresden, also had a Stasi ID. Because in the common file, which holds the service cards issued to Soviet military personnel, Putin is not listed".
The document would have allowed him to go in and out of Stasi offices, could be used with police, and would have facilitated his work recruiting agents, since he wouldn't have to tell would-be recruits that he worked for the KGB.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2018 02:51 pm
Moscow has rejected US criticism of the deployment to Venezuela of two Russian nuclear-capable strategic bombers.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/clone.of.russia-scoffs-criticism-bomber-deployment.html?fbclid=IwAR1VQXwGbSSibAN7gl2sFsv6S5mRxKmSBJ_3DJbPzSCqJMPyXvEJqPao9gY&fbclid=IwAR1q2oMhJ0jnzv_QCB-32XvnJkMCe8Gk2S5d8tz1NNndXkNwAezyXpPaVeo

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to Monday's arrival of a pair of Tu-160 aircraft in Venezuela by tweeting: "The Russian and Venezuelan people should see this for what it is: two corrupt governments squandering public funds and squelching liberty and freedom while their people suffer."

Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, dismissed Pompeo's comments as "undiplomatic" and "inappropriate". He told reporters on Tuesday such criticism sounds odd from a country "half of whose military budget would be enough to feed the whole of Africa".

The bombers' deployment comes amid soaring Russia-US tensions.

Russian-US ties have sunk to post-Cold War lows over Ukraine, the war in Syria, and allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
0 Replies
 
JohnKloper
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2018 03:07 pm
Hello to all. I read the topic and it was funny that the world turned upside down. Now we breathe freely, and in the USA the entire population is the result of the most powerful propaganda. I lived in the USSR, and for this reason I can clearly see that my good old Soviet Union now lives in the United States. As we have previously demonized the United States, now you are representing Russia in the same wicked evil. It's funny to watch it all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/09/2019 at 11:20:47