Talk:MiG Alley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MiG Alley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Aviation / Asian / Korean / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

need photos and map

This article needs a photo of a MiG-15 and an F-86. A map showing the area and important airbases would also be helpful. --Jtir 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map and photos do a lot for the article. However, I don't understand why a MiG-15 with Polish markings is shown. Did such airplanes fly in MiG Alley, or is this photo showing the same type of airplane because a photo with authentic markings is not available? In either case, the caption should be changed to clarify the photo.

--Jtir 18:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet technical inferiority?

"The MiGs, by contrast, tended to mimic the tactics used by the Soviets in World War II of attacking in large groups, hoping to make up in numbers what they lacked in training, experience and technology."

I will not comment on training and experience. Technically however, the Soviet MiG-15 was superior to anything the US and UN could field. Only the F-86 comes close, esp. with the better gunsight, but still is overall slightly inferior with lower thrust to weight, lower rate of climb, lower accelleration and lower service ceiling. I can live with both being considered technically on par (although like I mentioned I still consider the MiG superior), but the MiG is definetly NOT inferior.84.152.92.78 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree about the tactics either. The Chinese were there to train (hence restricting themselves mainly to fighter-bommer attacks), the the Soviets (especially from the 191st & 176th IAP) provided to very inventive in working to the strengths of their machines. J. E. Johnson's (an RAF ex-change pilot flying in Korean) said they had "come a long way" since WWII and described similarites to the Luftwaffen. Tactics is mainly about using strength of equipment to better an equal and while the early and late parts of the air war were mared for the Soviets by inexperienced aviation groups the bulk of the fighting from '50-'52 was conducted by experienced crews and as Johnson noted to be complacent about their technology and ability could be deadly. The RAF really never believed the figures that the FEAF was coming out with in Korean anyway and saw them as inflated. I think the figures from the Russian archives (which i beleve also are overclaimed, Pepelyev himself noted this) seem to back up the accertion.

In terms of this general understanding i think this section needs a serious rework - it would be very useful to document all points of view here and then let the reader decide.

The Discovery series "21st century war machines" episode 4 about fighters claims that the communist sides had superior conditions because their fighters were closer to base (more combat zone fuel) and radar coverage from ground. Which written sources might echo that claim ? TGCP (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor article

This article is quite innaccurate. Here is a page that might help improve it:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.170 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about inaccuracies? --Jtir (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the first report of Migs was not from F-80s but from a F-51 Mustang unit that came under fire of "Swept wing aircraft" - the date is also wrong. The first jet-to jet victory is completely false, read the article i linked. I don't have time to name them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.94 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your specific comments. If this is the sentence you mean, it refers to the P-80, not the F-80, although I see from the articles that they are essentially the same.

"The first USAF contact with MiG-15s occurred on November 8, 1950 with them attacking a flight of P-80 Shooting Star."

The cited source is:

Boyne, Walter, Col., Retired USAF,Korea, SAC, and ICBMs, 1997, Military Channel, aired 15 Dec 2007, 7:00-8:00pm, MST.

Do you know anything about this source?

I can't find the phrase "Swept wing aircraft" in the article you are citing.

I have tagged the sentence about the downing of the first MiG-15 by the 4th FIW with {{fact}}.

Please consider registering. It sounds like you have an interest in the subject and it would be helpful to have your perspective.

--Jtir (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEAF's inflation of the MiG kills was not too bad. It claimed 792 MiGs shot down by F-86. We know that Russians lost 345 MiGs to all cause, and Chinese loss of 224 MiGs in air combat (7 other combat losses, and another 168 aircraft lost to non-combat causes), plus NKPAF's loss of 100 MiGs to all causes (according to No Kum-Sok's testimony). So FEAF's claims probably had the inflation rate of 60%.

Russian's and Chinese claims were just outrageously high. Russians claimed 650 F-86 and Chinese claimed 211 F-86. That's 861 F-86s, without adding NKPAF's claims. Thanks to Thompson & McLareen, we have the number of F-86s that ever served in theater: 674, and the loss to all causes: 231. That's 270% inflation IF the number 231 was purely combat loss.

Even the allegedly best Soviet units in the Korean War had over-claimed a lot. In S. M. Shtemenko's, Chief of the General Staff, report to A. N. Poskrebyshev (Stalin's personal secretary) about VVS victories, 1951/12/09" (No. 465, p. 1135), it claimed 510 UN aircraft, including 172 F-86, from 1950/11/01 to 1951/12/06. Actually, the number of F-86 lost to all causes for the same period was only 40!

This report actually was the beginning of the troubles for the elite VVS 303rd IAD and 324th IAD because not only Stalin was not a fool, he would not take it lightly when someone tried to fool him. Just a little bit over a month later, the Soviet General Advisor to NKPA, Lt. Gen. Razuvaev sent Shtemenko a new report, "Lt. Gen. V. N. Razuvaev's report to S. M. Shtemenko about U. S. Aircraft loss, 1952/01/11", (No. 469, pp. 1141-1143)", that summarized the interrogation of the downed US pilots -- only 8 out of 80 captured US pilots were shot down by MiGs. These two elite fighter units were rotated back to home on Feb. 1952! This incident can be verified by Abakumov's bitter comments in Gordon & Rigmant's book (p. 134). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhwang.us (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the individual above is assuming the air combat/total loss ratios of Russian and North Korean aircraft were the same as the Chinese (and, this is a big assumption, that the Chinese were honest in their claims with regards to their combat losses), the "inflation rate" for U.S. was 40 percent, not 60. The "real" total being around 480 kills based on Russian, Chinese, and North Korean claims of their losses - I have no problem believing that the Chinese deflated their totals some and have to believe the Russians were probably more skilled so probably lost fewer a/c to non-combat causes, so the actual total is probably somewhere between this 480 total and the 792 number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Combat

This article has been ruined by the drivel posted in the Air Combat section not only is it littered with spelling and grammatical errors but the inaccuracies are appalling. In my opinion it should be removed completly until we can get a more balanced view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.55 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As well as being full of blatant factual inaccuracies, the whole section has been written from an extremely biased viewpoint, and is not fit for an encyclopedia. Also, the text is littered with grammatical and spelling errors to the point of being virtually unintelligible in parts. It should be removed and rewritten in a neutral, accurate way. Preferably by someone with a better grasp of the English language, who doesn't have an axe to grind.212.84.125.142 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. As I am reading I am thinking, "Who iz Russian who write this article? Iz wery bad. I had to stop reading and feel like to sing Russian national anthem". Really though, the blatant Red spin and terrible grammer in the "air combat" section makes the article unreadable. I have read hundredsd of Wiki articles and this is the first time I've felt compelled enough to write about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.99.71 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article definately needs rewriting, even without the bias. I had to skip over several paragraphs due to their unintelligibility. Kiwinanday (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that the Air Combat section needs completely rewritten. I suggest it be removed completely until then. Anyone coming to this page will get an inaccurate and biased impression of this subject. We cannot leave false information here 'until we get something better.' Better to have less information in the short term, than to have inaccurate information. If others agree then I will remove it.212.84.126.103 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is great information, and that the author gave us a valuable view that is not normally available in the English-speaking world. Unfortunately, the author's command of English is not what we might wish it to be for scholarly purposes. I am trying to clean that up. So far, I have rewritten the first paragraph. Also, I deleted the assertion that the first F-51D shoot-down corresponded to a specific loss on Nov 1, 1950, an assertion not supported by the cited documentation. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so please give me input. I will try to rewrite the entire air combat section to clean up the English, but it needs to be researched also from the American side to offer a more balanced and thorough view, a project which I cannot commit to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FmrUSAFGhostwriter (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a "view that is not normally available in the English-speaking world" or "the American side to offer a more balanced and thorough view". We need factual, verifiable information. Not views. Even if the section was to be rewritten in correct english, it would still be factualy wrong and biased. As you say, "the author gave us a valuable view". Be that as it may, Wikipedia is not the place for anyone's personal views. The section needs removed and done again from scratch.212.84.126.102 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty devoid of info but even still it is vastly better than the rediculously inaccurate version left here by Pravda a year ago. Still, it was articles like these that made me give up on Wikipedia and open-edit formats. The Western Ideal of a free and just information utopia, while a nice idea, is too tempting a target for cultures steeped in the ideology of propaganda.--Divbis0 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename this article.

I think "MiG Alley" should redirect to a page named "Korean War in the Air" or something similar, native English speakers could perhaps suggest something suitable.

"MiG Alley" should then be a subsection of that page instead of an article of its own.

I also completely agree that this article is written in very poor English and seems to have a strong bias. AadaamS (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MiGs Enter the Scene

"by October, the Soviet Union had agreed to provide air regiments of state-of-the-art, Soviet-designed and built MIG-15 fighters, along with the trained crews to fly them." This sentence is overdone and misleading ... it is enough to say that the MiG-15 was a high-performance fighter built in the Soviet Union. All of the MiG-15 was not Soviet-designed, as the Klimov turbojet engine powering it was an unlicensed copy of the Rolls-Royce Nene. AadaamS (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in MiG Alley

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of MiG Alley's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Solo234":

From No. 91 Wing RAAF: Stephens, Going Solo, pp. 234–238
From No. 77 Squadron RAAF: Stephens, Going Solo, p. 234

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MiG Alley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]