yes, i was actually surprised when i learned that the air war in korea was so instense. i had imagined it was just blowing some bridges up by the panthers and the Sabres took care of the few Migs and thats it. So many different palnes took place in the war, for both sides. The US had of course the Sabres and Panthers and Shooting Stars, but they also had props in the first few months of the war. The P-51 (At that time it was F-51) and F-4U were used extensively by the Air Force and Navy. And the role that the B-29s took was enormous. They are credited to destroying several Migs and Yaks; however they too suffered heavy losses. It would take a long time for me to mention all the planes used in Korea, so ill leave it at that for the US. THe North Koreans had their Mig-15, several Yak types, types 3 and 9 i think. And some other Russian-built planes. BTW thats also a big controversy; some US pilots recall seeing Russian pilots flying the NK planes. They could visibly see red-haired pilots and a russian 'look' on their face whith the mask off. And since at the start of the war NK pilots were virtually untrained...it is said that these Russian pilots were there to help them out and assist how they could. Had more evidence of Russian assistance surfaced, some say the cold war could have quickly turned hot.

China quickly joined the North's efforts to take over the South. This proved to be a heavy blow to the US and UN forces as resistance intesified and forward positions were forced to fall back, leading to US troops being captured and brutally tortured and brainwashed during the war. (China instructed NK on how to 'deal' with the POWs)

Now, believe it or not the US seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea in 1951 after the Soviets moved 13 air squadron divisions to asia and were within range to strike at Korea. Eventually the war went on with endless fighting until July 27 1953 when the armistice was signed.

Quote:




I really cant understand why Korea is so 'forgotten'. Its one of the most interesting conflicts of this century.

The first nighttime air-to-air jet kill was from an F3D Skynight shooting down a Mig15. 

The RAF (and probably other forces) had pilots seconded to the USAF.  The current issue of Aeroplane Monthly magazine has an account of such an RAF pilot flying F-86s with a US squadron and a particular mission that never - officially - happened, since it involved a flight across the Yalu over a Chinese airbase...



Quote:

Some INCREDIBLE Facts:

It was a single Mexican soldier serving in the US Army in WWII which achieved the greatest number of kills using a machine gun and a rifle. he obtained over 100 kills if i recall well and was injured  several times. His squadmates retaliated leaving him fighting the Nazis on a hill in France.

During Korea Puerto Ricans assisted the US Army in stopping the NK onslaught. In Vietnam Puerto Ricans fought in huge numbers along with American GIs. (My uncle was almost called up..)

Im completely sure other people of different countries served in the US military in various conflicts. It just comes to show you that America is full of different cultures....and that makes up America; diversity.

And even in Korea, UN forces of various countries served and died to push the North Koreans back. In every major conflict fought by man (in my opinion) there has been involvment my other nations, be it in supplies and goods or in troops.

Quote:

Not a book but plenty of interesting facts. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/ I've found this site extremely useful while reseaching a CFS2 Korean War project I've been working on with a small but dedicated & talented team over the last few months. The first campaign is almost ready to unleash on the unsuspecting public. Successive campaigns will hopefully feature the Commonwealth forces contribution to the conflict & help put matters right.

PS. Blatant plug. Here's a preview of what we've been up to. http://www.simviation.com/lair/cfs2korea.htm Nothing to download yet. Watch this space.  

PPS. Brensec. If & when you try this you will need to remove some installed aircraft. Otherwise you will almost certainly get problems with the "100 plane" bug.

Quote:


The Series I've been watching has dealt with the Russian pilot issue and the evidence (film and photos) is pretty conclusive that Russian pilots flew with the NK Squadrons. Whether it was 'authorised' or not is still a mystery but............

As far as China joining the conflict is concerned, I think we only have Gen. Macarthur to thank for this 'involvement' by China. It was his 'blatant' and often displayed 'superiority complex' that was responsible for UN forces pushing all the way to the Yalu, after the 'Inchon' landing. This 'dash' for the Chinese border was a definite purposeful disregard for 'US government policy' regarding the conflict and efforts to contain it (although he did 'transparently' claim that he had no idea of those policies). China (understandably so) took this as a direct threat from the US (UN). Truman is said to have been 'incensed by Mac's disregard for his authority and his seeming disregard for the peace of the world at large. (In my opinion, he was retired about 5 years too late).

It may be a little 'silly', but I find many episodes of the TV series MASH a good source of info regarding the course of the war and other aspects of it.   

PR Troops "assisted?"  ... . they were part and parcel of the US Army - and have been since 1917 when citizenship was extended  ... (that didn't have anything to do with WW1, right?) ... my number was 262 - the year they cut back on the draft....

Quote:

i personally find the korean war very interesting it was one of only two that my essays in history wernt a rush job on. that and WW2.

felix,wasn't that a Yak-15 shot down by Major Stratton in his F-3D ??

the first expression,that comes into my mind when i hear "Korean War" is MiG Alley,maybe the most famous dog-fighting zone of the whole world. there were some pretty nasty fightings between F-86 and MiG 15 out there.

You may be right - the dource I read from identifies that the first jet to jet nighttime interception was by an F3D to a Mig15 .. but not having done an extension cross-checking ..... I don't claim full knowledge of this.

I *believe* that the *first*  no ground assistance, radar only - "I didn't see the guy in front of me when I pressed the trigger" was when an F3D blasted a vicious, dangerous Po-2  on it's nightly harrasment mission...  (of course, even if it isn't true, it still makes for a neat chuckle)


Quote:

why don't we ask them?

Interesting reading...

http://www.korean-war.com/AirChronology.html

521103 Galyshevskij/351 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F3D-2 night kill

Stratton/Hoglind USMC F3D-2 1 x Yak-17 VSS Chief 64th IAK (KIA) night radar kill

I would read this that a Mig15 shot down an F3D at night, and another F3D shot down a Yak-17 on Nov. 03 , 1952..

Quote:


and what about vietnam (A-1 Skyraider)??

Quote:

The MiG had a better climb performance and less engine smoke.
Major problem was the limited ammo supply, and the slower firing speed (compared to the .50 guns on the F-86)
Furthermore the guns probably had the 2G limit they had in vietnam too.

It was simply said: if the mig got into hitting the US aircraft, it was time to bail out, because it could inflict heavy damage when it did hit (blowing complete tails off and such)

Hello out there,
  I wonder if the 37mm cannon carried on the Mig-15 (and later Mig-17s) were direct descendants of the 37mm cannon fitted to lend-lease P-39s supplied to Russian during the Second World War?  Certainly the Russians must of seen the value of such a weapon in air combat.

Well, think about it. If Mc Arthur nuked the north China would have taken a tougher stance, as would Russia, and therefore the war would not only have expanded but intensified as well. And with Russia...well...all hell would have broken loose. Of course yes i do think the US should have gotten rid of the NK government as soon as their advance towards the south slowed down (in a non-nuclear way). It would have prolonged the war and make it more bloody but NK would no longer pose a  problem in our time. Strange how this 'phenomenon' seems to happen often. The consequences of not removing the threat that started a war and just making a truce with them has brought so many problems. If Korea would have been reunited there wouldnt be a global nuclear threat, if Iraq wasnt taken during the 91 war it wouldnt have to happen now. Well thats my opinion anyhow..

Why is North Korea a problem? okay ,they've got nuclear weapons,but they surely won't use them. they are just a medium to emphasize the meaning of NK. those guys there don't have money,they are practically ruined. so they build a few nuclear weapons and say:"ho,ho,cowboys,we've got nukes. respect us and give us money!". if they used their nukes,they'd be as good as dead.

They already have a missile which can go past Japan... how far is something the US government won't tell to keep the support of the public IF they take armed action against them.

Don't forget the DPRK has a standing army of one million soldiers, and can probably double that number in an emergency. They will fight by numbers, not by the strenght of their equipment (the only airforce in the world still flying MiG-19's on a dayly basis)

The difference with the 'certain middle east countries' (iran, lybia) is that N-Korea WILL attack with nuclear weapons if driven in a corner, while the mideast countries probably won't risk nuclear suicide.

Quote:
If the US intelligence had any idea of the pressure imposed on the various dissident groups the case would haven been closed in 1991, and a lot of lives could have been spared and a lot of war trauma's avoided.

MAD again or a nuclear winter?

Who's gonna decide...

Quote:


yes i agree but so far we are following the 'korea' guidelines and anything associated

I can't speak to wether or not N Korea is actually a greater threat, but I do know this; When I was there in 85-86 the big man was Kim Il Sung and everyone was afraid that when he died his son (Kim Jong Il) would be twice as bad.  People lived in constant fear of that day.  Now he has been in power some years and that fear has yet to be justified, but from the look of things (to quote Hank Hill)  that boy ani't right...

Well, it would seem that the thread has gone a bit wayward!
But then who am I to talk about sending a topic reeling off on a tangent?...............lol I've probably done it myself a hundred times!

I agree with Felix in that the thread hasn't gotten to the 'naughty' stage yet, but I think when we start to talk about blowing up a particular country, maybe we're in danger of upsetting someone (perhaps the people from that country?).

As for the US having nuclear weapons (I assume illegal by certain treaties, is what was meant). They have been around for nearly 60 years now, and during the entire 'cold war', Korea, Vietnam and Middle east conflicts and every 'blood boiling' act of terrorism directed at the US or it's people around the world, they have never even threatened to use them (seriously, at least).
This record in itself, is enough for me to support the concept of the US being (albeit self-appointed) the major peacekeeper of the world, if you like, as the UN has shown recently how very ineffective it is and the disdain with which some governments treat it's resolutions. I believe there is a need for a trustworthy, level-headed, honest country (as the US has proven to be over the years) to maintain a small arsenal of Nukes to guard against those that would use them if the 'mutual annihilation' concept did not exist.
Let's face it. It's not an easy job and someone has to do it. The losses suffered by the US in the two recent Gulf conflicts and Afghanistan (let alone previous, more 'popular' wars) to free other nations from despots and dictators, is testimony enough to the cost of the position. I imagine that's why Australia has always been at their side whenever needed. Without exception.

i totally agree to Ivan. we cant live with the "USA ,Britain: good;Russia,Iran,Communists:bad;rest of the world:stupid" picture forever.
but that's just my opinion and now:shoot me,hang me,kill me! 

I'm sorry Ivan, and gentlemen, if my comments in any way suggested that I had a "West good, East bad, everyone else stupid" opinion about the world and the nuclear arms subject. (with reference to ATI's quote)

I'm aware of your Russian origins Ivan, and for this reason, and through common decency, I wouldn't point the bone at any particular nation when it comes to who is responsible for events and upsets during the 'cold war' or any other era.

I'm a little bewildered by your comment which 'suggests' that it is my 'American TV watching' experience that is responsible for my views about the US. Although American television and movies have been pretty much the staple visual entertainment in the western world for the last 50 years doesn't mean that it's the sole source of information, nor does it mean that intelligent people would not realise that there are always three sides to every conflict (i.e. Party 1, Party 2 and the Truth).
I am the first to make light of the Hollywood propensity to present, over and over, "How we won the war - by the Americans" (from John Wayne right through to Stylone)
I am not a "Yankophile" (meant in the 'affectionate' manner that we Australians use the term) and I am certainly not so silly that I would use any 'movie' or TV show to become the foundation (or even influence) my thoughts and feelings on such a serious subject.
Are your perceptions of Australia and it's people a result of watching 'Steve' the crocodile man on the box. I would think not, and you have a right to expect that I wouldn't suggest that it was the case.

I have seen the results of armed conflict. Real close up. I abhor any type of violence, especially that which involves the innocent. Nothing hurts me more than to hear of or see the horror that is the result on both sides of any armed conflict. However, after many years of studying the history of our world, and it conflicts, and possibly due to the realisation that sometimes comes with age and experience, I've come to the sad conclusion that there are always 'innocents' involved and unfortunately, as much as I hate it, when conflict does become necessary (God forbid), the freedom from the other horrors and injustices (for which the war is fought) somehow outweighs the aweful consequences that result.

I acknowledge your point about the existence of the USSR being a part of the possible reasons why Nuclear weapons were never used or threatened. But seeing as the USSR no longer exists, and Russia is no longer a 'super power', we are left with few choices.
I don't profess to know the answers. I can only say what I feel and that is that, personally, I am happy with the status quo in terms of the US being the 'watchdog' (for want of a better word) of the world.
It's only my opinion but my true feeling is that the US has, at least essentially, the best interests of the world at large, on there minds. That's not to say that Russia or North Korea or anyone else hasn't or wouldn't in the same position.
It's just that (once again in my opinion) I see the proof in past actions, over many decades, not simply recently.

Apart from that, I can't say, but then no-one else can either, as I see it.

As for your quote "and peacekeeping missions being unable to use armed force if the population the are supposed to protect is being decimated before their eyes because the UN has to get the security council together to decide IF they can use armed force... "

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my assertion that the UN has recently proved to be totally inefficient recently, when it comes to it's role of solving conflicts by way of consultation, resolution, sanctions etc.
I hope we agree on that, at least.

I've always enjoyed reading your posts, Ivan and I've come to like the few disussions that we have had over time.
I'm sorry if anything I said was upsetting to you, so much so that you would 'disect' my post, and set about rubbishing almost every thought I have shared.
If it was what I said, or the way in which it was expressed, please accept my apology for that.

If you simply disagree with my logic, and needed to say so, then let's agree to disagree.

Steve (not the crocodile man) j/k

First, mate, I'm sorry about the Russian bit. I didn't know. I have seen references that people have made (the name is what does it, which is silly really - we don't assume everyone named Patrick is Irish........... ) I don't recall seeing any of your posts correcting the issue - so sorry, I will remember.
My wife is Dutch actually, Schreyenberg is her name, so I know a little of things Dutch.

With regard to the NEWS issue. I can only agree with you. We are faced with a situation where we sometimes only have access to one side of the story, and in the West it would tend more often to be the American view.
I don't know if it's right or wrong. I suppose they have to try to promote their view and keep their people happy with the way things are progessing. We all know about the truths of the 1991 war that came to light long after the troops returned (Gulf war syndrome - exposure to chemicals etc). And of course, there is always the suffering that effects the 'other' side, most of whom are completely blameless.

Australia is a great place to live. I'm very proud and aware of how fortunate I am to be here (although we've been copping a bit of a beating over the refugee issue lately - I believe).
I suppose I have to admit to being a little sensitive when it comes to people imagining that we all run around in 'Mick Dundee' hats and can't tell the difference between a crapper and a bidet. (The Simpsons episode was very funny and I enjoyed every minute of it, but it didn't do alot to dispell the myths - nextdoor neighbours 10 miles away, Prime Minister a sheep farmer swimming in his own dam, no knowlegde of 'bullfrogs' - I could go on!)
Paul Hogan has much to answer for - In fact he's really not all that popular here - That's why he's in the US.

You mention your sensitivity over the recent conflict in Iraq. We've found out in earlier discussions, while it was going on, that there are two very distinct polarised groups as far as this issue is concerned, so I agree it's best to leave it well enough alone.

Thanks for your comments, I'm glad we had this little talk.........