For the time, was it as amazing as they said it was?

Yes. And remember - all Korean war kill numbers are rigged, because they were public.

>>33013579
>NATO codename faggot

>>33013579
Chuck flew one and against one for testing. Said it was pretty good but pilot was still the difference.
Had some advantages over F86, but not enough.
>>33013996
Fagot

File: get up here you little fagot.jpg (560KB, 2004x1446px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 2004x1446px

[autistic turbojet screeching]

File: chernobil_03.jpg (171KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x768px

>>33014292
Mi-6 and 26 going cheap here.

>>33013887
>Yes. And remember - all Korean war kill numbers are rigged, because they were public.
Except we have the actual unit documents, aircraft tail numbers and actual loss numbers for both the USSR and the US, plus the type and number of aircraft shipped to the Norks and Chinese plus how many they had remaining after the war. Soviet records also give a very good indication of their losses.

Either way, we know the following:
>the maximum number of F-86s in theatre at any given time was 297
>there were almost a thousand MiG-15s in theatre at that time
>the USAF notes 78 lost F-86s to air to air combat causes (with tail numbers, etc.)
>the USAF notes a total of 184 F-86s lost to all combat causes including AAA, unkown causes while on mission, etc.
>the USAF notes a grand total of 250 F-86s lost to all causes including combat, accident, engine failure, ground incident, etc. during Korea
>Soviet archival records note a total of 335 MiG-15 aircraft lost in Korea
>the Chinese claim 224 total MiG-15 losses over Korea

So, not even including North Korean MiG-15 losses (thought to be around 100), you have 559 total MiG-15s lost during the Korean War, vs the 250 airframes well documented by bu. nos. the USAF lost. Even if the USAF was fudging numbers on what an A2A combat loss vs a ground fire combat loss vs an accident and just assume all 250 were lost to A2A combat and that MiG-15s shot down every single one of those (extremely unlikely), the F-86 still comes out ahead.

The often cited 10-1 kill ratio in the F-86's favor, on the other hand, is most likely also inflated. Best scholarship on the matter puts the actual F-86 VS MiG-15 kill ratio in Korea somewhere from just north of 5:1 to a bit over 2:1 in favor of the F-86. When the MiG-15s in question were flown by the best trained Soviet pilots in their air force in the 303rd or 324th IAD, that ratio drops to between 1.4:1 and 1.2:1 in the F-86's favor.

File: 1311705980398.jpg (1MB, 1920x929px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x929px

In short: Yes.

It was designed to be an interceptor. It performed very well in killing B-29s.

It was also capable as a fighter, and could be a real threat thanks to its weapons and powerful engine. It outclassed everything the US had before it sent the Saber.

Long answer:

The Soviets, as did the western Allies, learned a lot in WWII. Not only did they develop a lot of combat doctrine in fighting the Germans, but also in observing the Americans and British. On such thing was the design, use, and counter-use, of strategic bombers.

By 1944, the Soviets (who were still neutral in the Pacific until after Germany capitulated) had gotten ahold of some B-29s and flew them back to Moscow, parted them out, and reverse-engineered them piece by piece. B-29s were among the most powerful and sophisticated bombers in service at the time, Stalin wanted that kind of strategic firepower, and the US refused to supply them via the Lend-Lease Act.

No only did they want that kind of technology for themselves, but also understood the implications of fighting against such weapons, upon which US strategic warfare relied.

After they had gotten ahold of German jet technology, and later augmented from British jet technology, they were able to produce such a powerful interceptor. And since they had an almost-identical replica of the B-29, they had a good idea of what it could do and how to counter it.

To be fair, the MiG, despite some shortcomings, had excellent performance in speed, rate of climb, and acceleration compared to anything the rest of the world had ever seen; it was first encountered by a P-80, and in 1950, the F-86 was still brand new and relatively untested.

File: Mig-15_v._F-86_Sabre_(Udvar-Hazy) small.jpg (2MB, 3848x1014px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3848x1014px

>>33013579
On par, if not slightly better than early versions of the F-86. So yeah, pretty good.

>>33018024
This. It was arguably the closest the USSR ever came to parity or superiority to the US equivalent tactical aircraft while deploying it in significant numbers well before the US. I personally believe the F-86 to be the superior machine over all variants, but anon above is correct that the earliest variants in Korea weren't exactly world-beaters just yet.

As tactical aircraft became more and more sophisticated, the USSR fell further and further behind.

>>33014664
That whole cashe of planes and tanks were contaminated by chernoyble. I wouldnt even want one if it did work...

>>33018170
It'd actually be relatively easy to decontaminate most of those machines at this point. It's the flora, fauna and water table that are still pretty fucked.

>>33018170
The tanks are fine now, just clean it thoroughly, even though it's probably unnecessary, and take a meter to bits of it to make sure the levels are safe. Chernobyl didn't "irradiate" anything, that's not how contamination works, 99% of the time. There's just small bits of radioactive material on stuff, you just need to get that off, even there is even that much there, or it's even still significantly radioactive. All the really dangerous shit decayed decades ago.

>>33018309
Its still ticking at 11 usv/hr no thanks

>>33018309
>All the really dangerous shit decayed decades ago
This isn't really accurate. There's still a scientifically surprising amount of iodine-131, strontium-90 and caesium-137 bound up in local plants, animals and water supplies. This keeps the dust in the area moderately dangerous as well. Ingesting food and liquids from plants and animals within the area or breathing dusty air within the area without protection is the main danger these days. Just breathing in dust particles laced with caesium-137 could ruin your whole day.

>inb4 halflives of said isotopes should have rheavily attenuated their presence by now
That's why it's scientifically surprising. The contaminant levels have persisted well into the most pessimistic projections from the late 80's about the impact of the event.

>>33018427
>eleven fucking microsieverts per hour

Wow, it's nothing.

>>33018457
I didn't actually know this, that's actually pretty cool.
A horrific sort of cool, but still really interesting.

>>33018484
Over the course of a year you would be exposed to almost 4 times the normal radiation level

>>33018484
>I didn't actually know this, that's actually pretty cool.
>A horrific sort of cool, but still really interesting.
Yup. It's why the area is still closed to settlement and will be for quite some time yet. It might be 20,000+ more years before humans begin living there and cultivating land there again.

There's also the Iodine-129 produced and released by the Chernobyl event. While not as radioactive as the isotopes mentioned above by activity per mass measurements, it has an extremely long half-life (15.7 million years), and is even more biophyllic than Iodine-131 and Strontium-90. In this case, Thyroid cancer and leukemia are the increased risk factors in nearly all fauna in the area.

File: chernobyl graveyard.jpg (595KB, 1247x779px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1247x779px

>>33018170
>I wouldnt even want one if it did work...
You know where fun begins? If you look this up on google maps, it's empty. Ukraine used these for their war at Donbass.

>>33018613
What are you going to do, live in the damn thing? It's a fucking tank.

I've been in reactors, well, obviously not the reactor itself, but the same room.

Just put on a dosimeter and stop worrying about it.

>>33018646
Its not empty, they whited out the satelite images. They would not use defunct and contaminated equipment.

>>33013579
>For the time, was it as amazing as they said it was?

>Do books, autobiographies, memoirs and detailed aviation charts and records exist?

>>33018666
It was on a episode of what on earth

>>33018646
Russian NBC decon was pretty advanced. They even used old jet engines with spray manifolds to clean off AFVs. The Ukrainians would have had no problem.

>>33018652
>What are you going to do, live in the damn thing? It's a fucking tank.
No, but he's going to be breathing the dust, rust, paint particles and exhaust fumes of the machine, any one of which could be rich with radioactive particles looking for a new home in his lungs.

>>33018720
This

>>33018666
>They would not use defunct and contaminated equipment.

It's easy to get old vehicles running if you have basic facilities. At least one T-34 on static display was revived for the war.

Spinning wrenches on military vehicles, or any vehicle really, isn't difficult. New batteries, perhaps new tires, fresh fluids and various perfectly routine tasks are all that would be involved to get the complete vehicles running.

>>33018720
The particles applied to the machine by the event would be the only problem. Radiation isn't a virus and you can test for contamination using a geiger counter. You could steam clean all exposed surfaces. Nothing inside the engine, gearbox or drivetrain would pose an issue except perhaps the air filter. Those are disposable or, if ancient enough to be oil wetted mesh, cleanable if you really want to. Ukraine has ample facilities for repair and mods.

http://militaryforces.ru/n0-444.html

Russians have some slick jet engine snowblowers and firefighting vehicles too. It makes sense when surplus is abundant.

>>33013579
Yeah it had a good damage for its Battlerating. Also Gaijin did a good job on the new tracer effects

>>33018749
>New batteries, perhaps new tires, fresh fluids and various perfectly routine tasks are all that would be involved to get the complete vehicles running.
Sure, if they were actually stored properly. Do you believe they actually bothered to drain and flush all liquids before they stored it? Gave the fuel feed systems a good cleaning? Even then, they'd still need to replace all the rubber and plastic gaskets, o-rings and seals if not completely rebuild/refurbish the fuel feed systems. The vehicles have been sitting in a field for 30 years, after all.

The main issue would be having parts to bring all of them back to working standards, and wrench turners with actual experience on those older models.

>>33018801
>The particles applied to the machine by the event would be the only problem
See >>33018457
and >>33018619
Any plants or animals, all the way down to microorganisms, in the area which came into contact with the vehicles or made homes/nests inside them can have transported with them and deposited significant quantities of radioactive particles. Dried urine, for instance, would be a constant source of Iodine-131 and Iodine-129. Fully decontaminating all those machines would be a labor intensive nightmare.

Much simpler to simply build new vehicles.

>You could steam clean all exposed surfaces.
You'd have to steam clean every part of the drive train, including the entire engine bay. Plus the entire crew compartment if there is any evidence of the smallest intrusion by local flora or fauna. That'd be a pretty labor intensive piece of work for all those vehicles.

>>33018749
>At least one T-34 on static display was revived for the war.
It was IS-2 or IS-3 though.

>>33018803
Gaijin fucking blows. They focus on cosmetic effects rather than improving how shit the gameplay is.

Airplane gameplay is decent, tank is fucking stupid.

>>33018873
Not compared to making or buying new. Its not like labor is the hard to get part.

>>33018905
You are just bad at it

t. 2100h play time

>>33018809
Ukraine has AFV factories and thirty years isn't shit. Plenty of mechanics would be available and a real mechanic would need the exploded parts breakdown more than a technical order.

I'm assuming they parked them then hauled arse out of there. If I could do the work, they could do it, and I could do it and I'm not special.

Select work facility, clear a route through it, feed the first few in to assess condition while stripping parts for refurb from the rest. Get a refurb line (not sophisticated, basically workbenches, tools etc) going and assess needs for wear parts, seals and gaskets. Most seals will have a match somewhere. Gaskets aren't hard to make from sheet stock, but if you need quantity just sub out the work to another shop.

A factory doesn't have to look pretty. Manual machine tools are extremely versatile and experienced machinists can work just fine from a sketch. Think these guys couldn't manage simple overhauls?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-tour-of-ukraines-mad-max-tank-factory

Here's the pretty tank factory:

http://brendanhoffman.photoshelter.com/image/I0000mIIMdogEtdU

>>33018873
>Fully decontaminating all those machines would be a labor intensive nightmare.

NATO and the Warsaw Pact didn't practice perfect decon. They trained for "good enough" decon. Decon doesn't have to be perfect to be good enough for war.

War is a tradeoff of lives for results. Enhanced cancer risk many years later is trivial. The risk of eating a Grad when you showed up in the wrong grid square is much worse.

Like the tradeoff of using DU penetrators, winning battles is more important than a few lives. The US still uses DU because killing enemy armor is more important than a modest cancer risk.

>>33018988
Not at all man. Are you really going to defend the T29?

Ghost shells (shooting and nothing happens), being angled and theres a 0% chance of getting a significant hit and somehow I blow up, shit render distance (I'm looking down my sights and suddenly a tank appears and shoots me)

Dont even get me fucking started on Russian tier 6.7+

Fucking invincible IS-3s.

Or shooting someone in the side armor and it hits the tracks and bounces.

It's a shit game.

>>33019082
>The US still uses DU because killing enemy armor is more important than a modest cancer risk.
DU is several orders of magnitude less radioactive than Iodine-131, Strontium-90, Caesium-137 or even Iodine-129.

I'm really not sure if you understand the health risks here. It's not "a little bit of exposure and then you leave the vehicle and you're fine". It's "a little bit of ingestion in any way by breathing or consuming or handling food with hands that touched a particle deposit, etc. and it becomes part of your bones or Thyroid or muscle tissue (including heart tissue), possibly contaminating you for life and turning you into a mobile contaminant reservoir".

I just can't see how decontaminating and then refurbishing all these vehicles is somehow more efficient than restarting a production line for them.

>>33018809
Aircraft and modern vehicles are a far cry harder, but even up till the 80s many systems used paper gaskets (shit some still do.)

I worked on a tear down of an F-86 (yay asbestos) as a side project when I was in the airforce. We were sticking it on a stick, but preserving certain systems so it could actuate flaps and shit. Was gonna be so cash, but the guy running the show was actually smuggling parts to private collectors and had no intention of any of that. Total shitbag.

I digress. Old jets did not use so many hard to replace o rings. And if you know how to read a color code, and have access to even basic compass/ razor tools, you can lay down a sheet of RTV and make gaskets and o rings.

Shit. We made some o Rings down range for a fire truck. Sheet metal cut two plats with shallow grooves where the old crust O rings were dipped in blue dye and layed down. Then we filled it, cured it, and bam. shit worked. (on the second try.

>>33019427
I mean, I get that it's possible. The question is whether or not it's worth it for vehicles which were built in the 60's and 70's and maybe early 80's, then left in a field for 30 years. My argument was that all that labor would be more efficient to the war effort going toward building new vehicles.

I mean, shit, maybe scrap the old fuckers or part out and save some of the particularly robust power plants, but 40-50 year old vehicles without any upkeep or modernization can't be worth all that labor, especially when it comes with a shit ton of decon on top.

>>33019497
Ill give you that. In a starvation scenario where you need equipment NOW, and they are just sitting there, now much less radioactive they become a bit more attractive. The thing is in Europe in particular, the countries acted like squirrels with acorns and would stash equipment all over and just sorta forget about it. So for a, not to be rude, peasant fighting force, they are handy. I am not disagreeing with you on any of your points by the way, im only >>33019427
and no one else in this thread. I dont trust old aircraft, so from that Chernobyl boneyard, fuck the helicopters. Maybe take the turbines, those old Russian turbo shafts last forever, but fuck the superstructure.

>>33019692
*Starvation in the sense of starved for arms and armor, not food.

>>33019082
>Like the tradeoff of using DU penetrators, winning battles is more important than a few lives. The US still uses DU because killing enemy armor is more important than a modest cancer risk.
>The fucking DU meme again.

For the last goddamn time, it's not even remotely dangerously radioactive. It's "dangerous" because it will give you heavy metal poisoning. Unless the army is licking the goddamn penetrators, it doesn't fucking matter.

>>33019216
Because the might not have a production line.

File: Maxim.jpg (182KB, 2048x1433px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 2048x1433px

>>33018666

>They would not use defunct and contaminated equipment.

Oh you

>>33018646
>Ukraine used these for their war at Donbass.
Most likely they scavenge metallic parts and melted it, mixing it with non-radioactive scrap.

File: mig strafe.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>33013579

File: 1446327079100.jpg (74KB, 850x550px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 850x550px

>>33018619
>It might be 20,000+ more years before humans begin living there and cultivating land there again.
IIRC there's talk of industrial redevelopment within 10 years, and human resettlement in less than 30.

>>33018809
>The vehicles have been sitting in a field for 30 years, after all.
normally I'd agree with you, but there's examples of Soviet tanks left in abysmal conditions (war memorials, fields, bogs and even fucking ponds), and their engines started up after the application of a wee bit of elbow grease. Some of them were buried/submerged for more than 60 years, 30 years in a radioactive field ain't shit.

>>33018887
a couple of T-34s were also "appropriated."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o_2Iqiy0lY

>>33021157
>that second shot
Jeezus, munitions spraying all over

>>33021657
I always remember this glorious video.

https://youtu.be/n_aDMqFrUV8

>>33023515
That actually was pretty glorious, thanks for sharing that anon.

>>33018309
>There's just small bits of radioactive material on stuff,

And that's the problem. Radionuclides. Small bits of material that emit alpha radiation. Generally harmless as long as they stay where they are. But if a radionuclide is scrapped off and ingested/inhaled, it begins irradiating one specific location in your body, causing an ulcer-like wound that starts bleeding and just won't heal, killing you slowly. A damn nasty thing because all common geiger counters don't pick alpha radiation and the radionuclides produce too little beta and gamma to be detected. A really nasty thing that will totally kill you many years after it was produced, and is nearly impossible to detect. And yeah, paint-over will help. Until the paint starts peeling. And if you want to clean the surface first, you'd better invest in a very good hazmat suits, and scrub the cleanup place really thoroughly afterwards.

Had pretty much no native night intercept capability.

Amusing to read the People's Air Force of the time said they shot down more enemy aircraft than the enemy had actually made.

Not a bad fighter. The ones with the versions of the British Nene engine had a good lifetime. The Russian engines were made for the Kleenex fighter concept.

>>33014664
I never got why the Mi-6 isn't used by anyone today. You get the occasional Mi-26 user here and there but it's only 2-3 frames. Hundreds of Mi-6's were built tho.

>>33023890
No one really needs one. And it's a bitch to maintain.

>>33023885
Its a bit like when the Norks claimed the sinking of a ship that was currently sailing around in the Med

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbe5IDcWbM4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUdR7TTb5xs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clN1p4dtm2E

>>33018720
>possibility of breathing in radioactive rust from an APC and maybe getting cancer in 30 years


>possibility of marching into a combat zone and immediately catching a 7.62 in the face


priorities, anon.

>>33023916
I need one.

>>33021657
>IIRC there's talk of industrial redevelopment within 10 years, and human resettlement in less than 30.
Cesium 137 should decay in this decade.
>>33023515
Was about to post it, nice vid.

>>33015129
Got any juicy links (say, DTIC)? I want to read more.

>>33015129
>F-86 VS MiG-15 kill ratio in Korea somewhere from just north of 5:1 to a bit over 2:1 in favor of the F-86
Rancid McCarthyst propaganda.

>>33019083
>Or shooting someone in the side armor and it hits the tracks and bounces.

>Take out DMax first time
>hit KV1 on side
>track eats it, turns yellow
>TWICE
>Get 1-shot
>never play it again

Slavaboos will never understand there are more factors than how well a plane turns and accelerates on paper. Sabers had radios that aren't garbage and cockpit glass that doesn't fog up.