Ok /k/. Would Mig 15 or F-86 Sabre win in a dogfight? How or why?

>>27785654
Depends on pure pilot experience and skill.

They are a pretty fair match

The Late F-86s with 20mms any time.

>>27785654
IIRC.. Chuck Yeager took an F-86 vs a MIG 15 and whipped it easily. Than he went up in the MIG and did the same to an F-86.

Things are not so cut and dried.

>>27785679
>k /k/. Would Mig 15 or F-86 Sabre win in a dogfight? How or why?

They literally both shot each other down, in real life... How about just opening up a history book?

>>27785679
>The Late F-86s with 20mms any time
>my retard logic tells me cannons win everytime
>ergo, MiG wins everytime

>>27785654
a actually trained pilot could in a MiG could probably outfly a F-86

>>27785696
>my retard logic tells me cannons win everytime
Where did I imply that?

The late F-86s had much better high speed control and the 20mms are a big step up over the fiddies which pilots complained about.
Besides being all around better, except for pure climb rate.

>>27785706
>actually trained pilot
>USSR, PRC or DPRK

>>27785696

I'm absolutely none of the "Hurr American stuff is better" guys, but that is a different case.

The early Sabres had the M3 .50cals, which proved rather ineffective in jet combat due to their low punch. MiG pilots on the other hand experienced difficulties with the velocity.

The M39 however is based on the concept of the German MG213. Forget the Maus, the V2, the Horten, THIS was Germany's real wunderwaffe. It had everything, EVERYTHING! Good shell weight, muzzle velocity, amazing rate of fire....

It gives the Sabre a tremendous advantage in combat. Then again, by the time the M39 armed ones roll around there's the MiG-17 already.

>>27785752
86 pilots were at no disadgvanatge flying any model with .50s, and no 20mm variant would have had an advantage purely because of the armament. You do not understand air combat or acm in the least, and certainly not what .50's do to the fuselage of a small jet engine

>>27785795
>M3 .50cals, which proved rather ineffective in jet combat due to their low punch.
Besides that the incendiary had trouble igniting at high alt.

And the MG213 had extreme muzzle velocity, the 20mm at least.
It's like the US T17 .60 velocity + Hispano shell size

I'm pretty sure sabres where outclassed over korea.

>>27785654
Depends entirely on the situation.

The MiG had generally superior performance
>better climb rate
>better turn rate
>better thrust/weight ratio

But the Sabre had better range, ergonomics, and armament better suited to fighter combat (aided by a radar gunsight).

Really it all depends on the quality of pilots.

File: Hunter - Mig 17.jpg (218KB, 1272x828px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1272x828px

>>27785654
Hawker Hunter.

>>27785778
>USSR
where?

>>27785874

Both sides claim to have a retardedly high kill ratio in their favour.

>>27785815
In a 1v1 dogfight it wouldn't matter, but for a war it's nice if claimed air2air kills were actually kills the majority of the time.

>>27785876
>better turn rate
Not at high speed

>armament better suited to fighter combat
The fiddies were heavily complained about.
Radar gunsight was great ofcourse

>>27785902
The .50s were bordering on inadequacy, but they had the advantage of a radar gunsight and being overall better suited to killing fighters than the cannons of the MiG-15.

>>27785902

>The fiddies were heavily complained about.

I do believe the anon referred to the ease of getting a hit compared to the rather slow-firing 23 and 37mms on the MiG.

But still, part of the overblown kill claims US pilots made is due to them saying "I dumped so many fiddies into him, he's got to be dead!"

File: 1 second burst.jpg (31KB, 793x484px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 793x484px

>>27785752
>>27785795

These stills are taken a merely seconds apart in the slowed down guncam reel. Which means in reality, they're about one second, a good single pull of the trigger.

Now, what happens to the MiG-15 here?

File: 1 second burst2.jpg (30KB, 791x484px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 791x484px

>>27785957

>>27785916
>The .50s were bordering on inadequacy
>I literally have no idea what I'm talking about, the Post™

Not sure how it compares to real life, but the .50 cals in DCS are pretty awful.
>bury 20 rounds into a Mig
>he keeps flying with no damage

>>27785916
>>27785921
USA should have just put 4 ADEN in their F-86 like goodboy Britain did in their Hunter.
Total overkill

But yea, the Mig-15 didn't have great armament either.
I don't know why they didn't just put 4-6 Berezin B-20 cannons in their Mig.
Very small and light great cannon.

Maybe they were just scared of bombers

>>27785957
>what happens here
An anomaly
Majority of the time the Mig survived it.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=PlAAJReESsIC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=.50+armament+of+the+sabre+inadequate&source=bl&ots=FydZg4D74P&sig=tRVy4g4CTagl-qflN39EhZsTEbI&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=kNiPVdGFIsL1UMjug4AD&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=.50%20armament%20of%20the%20sabre%20inadequate&f=false

>44% of claimed air 2 air kills were assessed as destroyed
Not being able to finish of enemy pilots is a nice way to grant your enemy more experienced pilots instead of them having to replace them with rookies.

>>27785991
Fiddies were universally complained about

>>27785975
>>27785957

That is ONE kill. Of course there always is the possibility of that single round burning everything.

Do you not think the US had a reason to make a switch to cannons after Korea?

File: spin1.jpg (47KB, 794x483px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 794x483px

>>27786012
Here, a MiG caught in a flat spin takes hits...

File: 1323382362392.jpg (64KB, 990x513px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 990x513px

>>27785957
>>27785975

F22 will always lose to Rafale

File: spin2.jpg (42KB, 794x484px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 794x484px

>>27786084
A gentle press of the trigger, and hits ignite the tail...

File: spin3.jpg (58KB, 792x484px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 792x484px

>>27786095
as you can imagine, the jet engine does not like being hit by any bullets, let alone incendiary, the tail ignites in flames

>>27786114

So, if the fifty cal was so sufficient, why do you think they pushed so hard for the introduction of cannon-caliber armament?

>>27786084
>>27786095
If only pilots always faced migs in a flat spin like a p-39

File: potshots.jpg (49KB, 795x484px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 795x484px

>>27786125
.50's were really only fully replaced when an entirely new rotary 20mm gun system was introduced

>why a rotary gun though?

For the same reason .50's had been the mainstay, high RoF, with smaller cal. bullets (Russians still went for 30mm) because the US faced fighters, first and foremost,

(plus missiles were coming of age, which would obviously be used on bombers, instead of heavy cannons)

File: potshots2.jpg (52KB, 796x484px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 796x484px

>>27786215

File: potshots3.jpg (52KB, 795x484px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 795x484px

>>27786229

>>27786215
And those same .50s proved to be underpowered in the jet age.

And those few pictures don't disprove the countless pilots who complained about the fiddies.
Also if they had developed the M39 much sooner, the Mig-15 would have never been known as a durable aircraft.
And again, a few exceptions don't mean nothing when a majority of the migs survived getting shot at.

See link in >>27786008

>>27786277
>Iplaywarthunder
>real life and actual kills are unimportant to me

File: 50s wreck mig 2.jpg (45KB, 793x486px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 793x486px

>>27786279

>>27786292
>I don't read actual source material.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=PlAAJReESsIC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=.50+armament+of+the+sabre+inadequate&source=bl&ots=FydZg4D74P&sig=tRVy4g4CTagl-qflN39EhZsTEbI&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=kNiPVdGFIsL1UMjug4AD&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=.50%20armament%20of%20the%20sabre%20inadequate&f=false

You can read right?

File: 50s wreck mig 3.jpg (34KB, 791x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 791x480px

>>27786301

File: 50s wreck mig 4.jpg (40KB, 794x487px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 794x487px

>>27786307
>>27786310

>>27786279
>>27786301
>>27786310
What do you want to prove with these exceptions?

The US marine corps was a few years ahead and was already using 20mms during ww2.

>>27786329
Can you read?
Most migs survived being shot at.

>>27785991
BRuh
even in WW2 the US determined that .50 wasn't getting the job done.

The very fact that the 10:1 kill ratio initially claimed is now estimated to be closer to 2:1 should tell you about the effect fiddies really had.

>>27786346
1.3:1*

>>27785887
>[muffled monkey noises]

>>27786356

Wasn't 1,3:1 against Soviet pilots?

>>27786361
Yea, but Chinese aren't people so those kills don't count

>>27786346
>>27786356
>>27786361
Nobody really has a definite idea right now of what the k/ds were actually like, and we probably never will.

>>27786365

So we can conclude that if both were flown by competent people the advantage was slightly in favour of the Sabre.

I would say ergonomics and ease of use are the thing here.

File: these are literally guncam stills.jpg (25KB, 793x481px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 793x481px

>>27786338

File: still 2.jpg (27KB, 792x484px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 792x484px

>>27786395

File: still 3.jpg (25KB, 792x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 792x480px

>>27786408

>>27785889
VVS pilots were confirmed after the cold war after some portions of the archives were declassified to have flown missions in Korea during the war.

File: still 4.jpg (30KB, 794x485px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 794x485px

>>27786414

File: still 5.jpg (27KB, 795x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 795x480px

>>27786431

File: still 6.jpg (23KB, 795x481px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 795x481px

>>27786443
This giant flame coming from the MiG's engine, (caused by a burst of .50 cal) is not a good thing, just in case you didn't figure it out

File: 1359031494013.jpg (46KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x334px

Reminder that warthunder isn't a reliable source of information about the effectiveness of MGs vs cannons, and it of course ignores doctrine-wide decisions.

>>27786430

Hell, their division was led by Kozhedub.

That glorious SOB was the top-scoring ace the Allies had in WWII.

>>27786453
Reminder that pilots are and pilots universally wanted cannons
https://books.google.nl/books?id=PlAAJReESsIC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>27785654

About even in terms of technology but American pilots were way better. Sabres slaughtered MiGs 10 to 1.

>>27786478
> Sabres slaughtered MiGs 10 to 1.
Closer to 2:1

>>27786453

>Muh War Blunda bogeyman

Fuck off.

File: F-86 Sabre %22Karens Kart%22.jpg (267KB, 1952x803px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1952x803px

>>27786478
>Sabres slaughtered MiGs 10 to 1.
Probably not, both sides did some serious overclaiming of kills, IRL it was closer to 3:1, or maybe 2:1, depending on who you ask.

>>27786547

>Dismissing sources with memespouting

gg

Fiddies in WT are fucking lasers at times by the way

>>27786547
>oh he's using a source
>Ok lets try to refute it
>LOL WARTHUNDER FOLDED JAPANESE WINGS LOLOLOLOL

Are you American that reading is such a difficult thing to do?
https://books.google.nl/books?id=PlAAJReESsIC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23#v=onepage&q&f=false

No insult is going to erase this source.
What did pilots want? Cannons
Did they go back to fiddies/HMGs after cannons? No

File: BALT BLAT.jpg (24KB, 300x387px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x387px

What would have happened if the claps had stuck 30 mm ADENs on the F-86?

>>27786602
Migs would have a reputation of blowing apart instead of being durable.

>>27786602

Well you see Nigel.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Sabre

>>27785654
>condition of airframes/systems
>pilot training
>current ROE
>force on force numbers

being equal, I'd rather be lucky than good

If America was being stubborn with the use of .50 cals on the Saber, it wasn't as bad as the noguns F-4 phantom decision.

>>27786341
Yak-9K NS-45 cannon op as fuck

>>27786277
>And those same .50s proved to be underpowered in the jet age
F-86A and MiG-15 have similar fired weight per second.

>>27786341
>even in WW2 the US determined that .50 wasn't getting the job done.
Contrary to popular belief .50 is fine.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA800394

>>27787370
>Contrary to popular belief .50 is fine.

Anyone who understands aircraft design and engineering, physics, has read a pilot memoir or biography, or at the very least has a minimum of one working eyeball and the ability to watch images moving in motion, such as actual gun camera footage, should know.


Unfortunately, this board is plagued with warthunderers and slavs

Against poorly trained Nork pilots, the Sabre performed with a 3:1 win/loss ratio.

Against soviets, it was more like 1:1.

>>27786617
Best sabre right here. And it didnt kill its engine like the quad 20mm on the amerikan wahres did.

But if we want to stay in a korean timeframe, i would pick the mig over early sabres.

Btw. Does anyone have any information on the changes to the 6-3 wing? Stallspeed, reason for the change overall?

>>27785679
war thunder player spotted

>>27788392
Of the 10 F-86F-2s that were ever made, 2 of them crashed because they sucked propellant gases from the guns into the engine. They were shit.

That said, anyone know how the FJ-2 and FJ-3 compared to the USAF F-86s?

>>27787346
You mean in that study the .50 got totally good boyd by the .60 and the Hispano 20mm.
inb4 you're blind and think the .60 and the .50 are the same round.

>>27787671
>has read a pilot memoir
The same pilots who wanted cannons right?

>>27785654
Korea more than proved it was the f-86.

>>27786450
You can stop posting. It doesn't prove anything besides your ability to upload images.

I could claim that the most effective anti-tank weapon in World War Two was a ditch, then post a dozen pictures of tanks in ditches.
Doesn't make me right though does it.

>>27787671
>.50 is fine
That's true. People are saying that the 20mm was better. Which is still true.
Unless you honestly think that fighter aircraft should continue to have attributes that are just 'fine'.

>>27785654

MiG-15, because Su Tya Gin

Guys, I just read the F-86 had gunsights adjusted by a radar, or it had radar-imaging

When did they start to mount radars on single seat fighters/interceptors in the US?

File: 20150606_151504.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>27791329
Radars on fighters had been a thing since WW2, but were primarily larger pieces for navigation and finding targets used on night fighters.

The radar gunsight on the Sabre was something completely different - it was far smaller, and, unlike the search radars used on night fighters, the radar on the Sabre was more of a simple rangefinder that plugged into a computer to give the pilot a more accurate picture of where to aim.

On the subject, are there any books out there on the Korean air war? Preferably MiG Alley.

>>27791427
Was the Sabre the first US fighter to use this technology?

>>27791465
I'm not sure, really. From a quick search, looks like the British were throwing them on their Lancasters at the end of WW2.

File: RTFM.png (572KB, 1128x1828px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1128x1828px

>>27790759
> People are saying that the 20mm was better. Which is still true.
Read the book.

>>27790590
I GET JOKE, I LAUGH.

RUSSIAN PILOTS IN MIG WERE HAVINGS BETTER COMBAT. NORTH KOREAN PILOTS LIKE AMERICAN STOCK BROKER IN 1929. THEY JUMP OUT OF MIG AT FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLES.

>>27791491
>.60 is the same as .50 the post
Time required for 90% probability kill is much better for the .60 and the 20mm Hispano than the .50.

.60 has a higher probability to killdirectly from the rear than the .50 api-t
Same goes for the 20MM m3 (which is an US Hispano iirc)

30 degrees of the tail the .60 and 20mm also outperform the .50.

The time required for a 90% kill probability is lower for both the .60 and 20mm than the .50 api-t

You do know that the .50 and .60 are completely different rounds right?
Right?

Your source confirms that the much bigger .60 and 20mm outperform the .50

>>27791573
Also USA had no good cannon designers and had to copy the British after they developed the Hispano into the MkV for the M3 cannon, but it still sucked.
M39 is totally different from the M3

>>27791506
I spit milk pn my keyboard

>>27791491
You've just proven yourself wrong dickhead.
The book, in black and white, shows that .50's are fine, but bigger is better.

File: Ammo009jpgt1311287346-1.jpg (70KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 576x768px

>>27791681
He probably couldn't see that .60 and .50 are different calibres.
Right is .60

>>27791573
>much better
Vs fighter it is 19% for 0.50 vs 23% and 25%. It is better but not much.

Vs bomber things become funny. It's 2.2 sec for .50 and 1.5 sec of 20mm INC. Too bad no one used all incendiary belts because this is counterintuitive (you know explosive rounds do more damage hurr durr.) And HE 20mm had worse time of 3.3 sec.

There was only one caliber that had distinctive advantages in the order of hundreds percent. Based 30×90RB mm.

>>27791717
>Vs fighter it is 19% for 0.50 vs 23% and 25%. It is better but not much.
23% is 20% more than 19%.

>>27791743
And 2.2 sec is less than 3.3 sec. BTW main point about cannons is: "hurr durr .50 is maybe ok vs fighter but against bomber it is USELESS". Funny isn't?

>>27791782
Well, the 20mm incendiary rounds do outperform the fiddie against bombers.
You just need different ammunition against bombers than against fighters

>>27791573
>>27791717
>based 30x90
Shame they didn't test others.
But this test does confirm than the German Mk108 with minengeschoss was the best answer for bombers, despite its velocity.

Would have liked to see the Japanese Ho-5 cannon, which is actually the same gun as the Browning M2, just modified to shoot a shortened Hispano cartridge.
http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/20-mm-aircraft-cannon-ho-5-browning-principle.html

The MG 151 and the MG151/20 with minengeschoss would be interesting too.

Berezin B-20 too, very light cannon (only 25kg) but the same velocity and fire rate as the German Mg151/20. Shame Russian ammunition wasn't too good.

Or how their improved M3 would have compared with the Hispano Mk V

>>27786094
>>27786094
go away frogposter. your posts always devolve into Rafale circlejerks with your Parisian faggoty friends.

File: howard.jpg (59KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x630px

>>27790740
>literally reels of guncamera footage showing .50's shredding MiG's

>You can stop posting. It doesn't prove anything

File: literally catching on fire due to a single burst.jpg (28KB, 792x486px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 792x486px

>>27791573
>Time required for 90% probability kill is much better for the .60 and the 20mm Hispano

And in the real world, where planes move about, and at best, pilots having glancing shots, or high speed passes, weapons with high RoF will always be the better option, because they'll always have a higher % of hitting, And if you knew anything about the internal workings of a single engine jet fighter (you don't), you'd know six .50's are more than enough to disable hydraulics, damage control surfaces, cause oil/glycol leaks, and, quite simply, put the fighter out of the fight. Whether the pilot has a chance to bail out, or crash land, becomes irrelevant at that point. The plane is unable to function.

Wanting to see plane go 'boom', is a side effect of movies and video games, and people like you not understanding that a plane can still be downed, regardless of whether it literally disintegrated into thin air or not.

Even planes armed with 20mm would still only fire enough to damage a plane, then immediately pull of to attack another in a real furball. Because:

A: You always have to worry about the fact that another enemy fighter could be on your ass, while you're busy trying to kil the guy in front of you

and

B: While you're busy with the fighter you're tangling with, your wingmen could be in trouble and need help, not to mention the bombers, which you're supposed to be protecting.

But of course, we all know .50's did just fine.

>pic