It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool

Spec Ops differ in what they do. If one Spec Ops was all you needed for everything, the Brits wouldn't have the SAS (Special AIR Service) and SBS (Special BOAT Service). Then there's the Royal Marine Commandos. And probably others I am unaware of.


yeah but the SAS doesn't just mean AIR SPECIALISTS (that is just the name of their regiment)!!

if you look at past SAS missions, most of them don't even cover specialist fields (by air), sas operate mainly by ground/on foot.

but as said in other threads, i think the british SAS is the most HIGH PROFILE special forces unit in the world and there was a recent article in a newspaper about how the great work the SBS has done in iraq, and its only because of the name 'SAS' the SBS don't get the credit they deserve which there missions are similar to that of the SAS (as far as i'm aware).

but yes i agree, a special forces soilder (any nation) is a 'speical forces solider' FULL STOP.

put it this way military wise, i wouldn't want to mess with anyone 'special' anything







[edit on 15-5-2006 by st3ve_o]




posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
the discussion of the india / china war , really needs to take into consideration "the hump "

the Himalayan range , was a logistical nightmare to the allies in WWII , and it hasnt changed much since - lol

as the MIGs in question did not have in-flight refueling -- they had to carry everything over the hump , and get back after combat

the weapons load whould have suffered -- as would pilot enduranve -- the hump was a nightmare to fly over in any situation -- facing combat at the other end could not be pleasant


AND ensure they made it back , prefereably fighting and flying back home on internal fuel -- drop tanks are a major drag to dog fight preformance

the indians would have had it easy -- just sit back and scramble thier interceptors when chinese planes appeared over the mountains

fighting over friendly terretory -- on internal fuel , with a heavier weapons load out , is always an advantage



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
name 'SAS' the SBS don't get the credit they deserve which there missions are similar to that of the SAS (as far as i'm aware).

Just to expand on this , the SBS regualry conduct operations and its either reported as SAS or BRITISH COMMANDOS.
IE look at the UK embassy in kuwait after GW1 , the SBS blew down the front door with a door charge since the embassy didnt seem fit to call the janitor who lived 2 doors away or provide the correct plans.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the discussion of the india / china war , really needs to take into consideration "the hump "

the Himalayan range , was a logistical nightmare to the allies in WWII , and it hasnt changed much since - lol

as the MIGs in question did not have in-flight refueling -- they had to carry everything over the hump , and get back after combat

the weapons load whould have suffered -- as would pilot enduranve -- the hump was a nightmare to fly over in any situation -- facing combat at the other end could not be pleasant


AND ensure they made it back , prefereably fighting and flying back home on internal fuel -- drop tanks are a major drag to dog fight preformance

the indians would have had it easy -- just sit back and scramble thier interceptors when chinese planes appeared over the mountains

fighting over friendly terretory -- on internal fuel , with a heavier weapons load out , is always an advantage


Yes.. and that too IF there were PLAAF a/c in the region with required ranges.
But Tibet just didn't have the planes or the infrastructure to hold them in the 60s.
The interceptors wouldn't have had it easy, they wouldn't have had to do ANYTHING!!

Its the a/c flying CAS/interdiction and photo recon that would've had it easy.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I will concede that airpower may hvae made some difference, but far from turning a resounding defeat into a resounding victory. Quite frankly the INdian soldiers were poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly led, compared to the PLA troops.
India was lucky that te Chinese only had very limited objectives and had a reasonably small force. Anything larger and the Chinese wouldn't have had a unilateral cease fire.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Now thank you for that list of completly useless information.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Compare this to PLAAF numbers in the region..I have found NOTHING and am assured that there were NO a/c in or around the region and NO infrastructure to support the same in 62.


Well looking at one source, "scramble" is not looking to hard. I remember you having a map showing only a little fraction of chinese airbases and calling that all?. I have to tell you that scramble is NOT a reliable source. FAS.org put the chinese airbase figure to 14 bases with a lot more tactical air strips. That is more believble than china only having on the whole of tibet.

The askin chin region would have come more under the command of the Xingjiang airforce because its more close to the populance areas, Some of he troops in
the region were involved in 1962 using a engineering battlaion to help build the highway which started the war.


According to Mad scientist's source china had six airfields in Tibet. That is most likey refering to the ones near Lhasa while the ones in xingjiang at hotan is not counted. Thats your non-existant bases. So they had the infustrure for airbases already in tibet, logic goes that when there are bases for them they are normally full wth aircraft. I doubt there would be just a few planes there and should number 200 or so for the front with others from the mainland close by. Chengdu would be a good transit for fighters being delievered.

Do you know of the american pilots flying over the hump?. and the air strips they landed at


It would've taken months to establish bases and ferry a/c from the east and Manchuria.


Actually the majority of chinese planes were stationed in the lower reaches of china aroud the hunan,jiangxi and fujian coridoor after the air battles with taiwan in 1958 and the taiwanese U-2 flights in china. The aircraft ould't be stationed in manchuria, that was the korean war era. Even so there was only 800 maximum fighters out of the 3000 chinese fighters used in manchuria during th korean war.

And it wouldn' take "months" to ferry the planes to tibet. They fly planes to the front ad then transit to the battle field. But as i said before the chinese during the korean war established a airstrip in week/s dependng on the distance. I dont see how hard it could be to use the existing air fields anyway.


Anyways any attempt to bring any a/c incld. MiG 15s would have been scuttled by IAF raids escorted by gnats very capable of taking on MiG-15s.


Well i honesty doubt how far a raid into china would reach consiering he very large PLA contingent in tibet at the time. After the 1959 rebellion the PLA was shown in oce to stop the CIA ad indian backed gurilla campaign in china. Most figures state the number as 200,000 in the tibet military district. ALL PLA divisions and units have assigned AA defences and any indian attacks on any airfield woud have been met with a barrage of AA and fighters

But i would like to see which escort the IAF has of covering a good 800km one way over the himilayas. If you manage to pass that then you have to fight your way through PLA defences.


Also i would like to state whether the indains will outfight the chinese. The Mig-15s had no trouble dismatling the F-80s and F-84s of the US airforce during the early years and most of the indian fighters being of a similar class (straight wings) i do not see them fighting the Mig-15 using the chinese tactics.

during the battles in Mig alley during the korean war the chinese would fly in a pack of 40-100 fighters at high atitude and would bounce the enemy, Bounce as in dive and shoot to utilze their better high alitude performance. The Mig-17 improved its dog-fighting capablities and was somewhat like the super sabre. But this is not inclusive of the Mig-19 which was even more improved

Here is a break down of PLAAF numbers

First number is for 1960 and th second is for 1963

IL-28 420 315
MIG-15* 1,850 645
MIG-17* ____ 1,030
MIG-19 ____ 150

Its true that they couldn't all be brought to tibet, not even half of them. But at least 200 or 300 fighters would have been brought there to bring the number of fighters already there to a higher level

The Mig-15 has about a range of 800km. Here is a map i made showing the distances

- The green line is 500km so 800km is obviously longer.
- The red dot is Lhasa and the red box is where one of the two major battles were taking place in NEFA
- The blue dot is hotan where their is a airbase/air field. and the blue box is askin chin where the other big battle took place





Hey a 'starfighter' killer can take on anything aye?


No,

The Starfighter is a un-manuverble very fast interceptor while the Mig-15 was a dogfighter with average handling capailities and the Mig-17 had much improved ones.

But it is different fighting the pakistani airforce with their little formations and the chinese airforce which swarms the enemy



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Well looking at one source, "scramble" is not looking to hard. I remember you having a map showing only a little fraction of chinese airbases and calling that all?. I have to tell you that scramble is NOT a reliable source. FAS.org put the chinese airbase figure to 14 bases with a lot more tactical air strips. That is more believble than china only having on the whole of tibet.


Care to put a link to this source. I think we can all agree that whatever PLAAF bases there were in China, they would hvae been very rudimentary at best and conducting operations from them would have been very difficult. Not to mention the sheer height of these bases would have reduced the fuel and weapons load of said planes greatly.
The IAF had the advantage of sea leel bases whereby their planes could be fully fuelled and armed.




That is most likey refering to the ones near Lhasa while the ones in xingjiang at hotan is not counted. Thats your non-existant bases. So they had the infustrure for airbases already in tibet, logic goes that when there are bases for them they are normally full wth aircraft.


As is well known the PLA had no intention of using aircraft and didn't have any forward deployed. Therefore there were no air bases full of planes. Infrastructure for air bases refers to a runway, not the other facilites necessary for running operations out of it.


I doubt there would be just a few planes there and should number 200 or so for the front with others from the mainland close by. Chengdu would be a good transit for fighters being delievered.


Are we actually dealing with facts here or just supposition ?




Actually the majority of chinese planes were stationed in the lower reaches of china aroud the hunan,jiangxi and fujian coridoor after the air battles with taiwan in 1958 and the taiwanese U-2 flights in china. The aircraft ould't be stationed in manchuria, that was the korean war era. Even so there was only 800 maximum fighters out of the 3000 chinese fighters used in manchuria during th korean war.


Precisely why the PLAAF would not have moved them, they were fearful of Taieanese agression. During the Korean War the Chinese only had about 800 Mig-15's, all given to them by the Soviet Union. Within a few short years the USSR had turned China from a country with no air force to the worlds 3rd largest. Many were shot down down by the more skilled pilots, hence why Stalin sent in battle hardened Soviet combat pilots to fight the Americans.


But as i said before the chinese during the korean war established a airstrip in week/s dependng on the distance. I dont see how hard it could be to use the existing air fields anyway.


Well Manchuria was heavily populated and had the necessary infrastructure to do that. Tibet for obvious reasons is the complete opposite. Also there weren't many airfields in Tibet to begin with much less proper raod and rail links.



Most figures state the number as 200,000 in the tibet military district. ALL PLA divisions and units have assigned AA defences and any indian attacks on any airfield woud have been met with a barrage of AA and fighters.


Any links to that number of troops. As has already been stated the PLAAF did not set up shop in Tibet - the INdians also did not want to strike deep into Tibet anyway with their Air Force.


But i would like to see which escort the IAF has of covering a good 800km one way over the himilayas. If you manage to pass that then you have to fight your way through PLA defences.


Jets would have had no trouble crossing the Himamlayas and PLA defences would have been liomited to unguided AAA, not something which is that effective.


Also i would like to state whether the indains will outfight the chinese. The Mig-15s had no trouble dismatling the F-80s and F-84s of the US airforce during the early years and most of the indian fighters being of a similar class (straight wings) i do not see them fighting the Mig-15 using the chinese tactics.


The USAF knocked down a huge number of Chinese MIG-15's in the Korean War even when using inferior planes such as the F-80. When US pilots flew the Sabre they had a more than 10-1 kill ratio against Chinese pilots. It would hvae been far greater if the PLAAF didn't keep on hightailing it across the border into Manchuria at teh sight of US planes. It was the Soviets in Mig-15's who were seen as worthy adversaries, not the Chinese.
Bearing in mind at teh time the IAF possessed satet of teh art jets some 10 years more advanced than the Mig-15.


during the battles in Mig alley during the korean war the chinese would fly in a pack of 40-100 fighters at high atitude and would bounce the enemy, Bounce as in dive and shoot to utilze their better high alitude performance.


They hunted in packs because they knew one on one there was no chance of taking on the USAF, even then outnumbering USAF planes in dogfights they still took far heavier losses. What is also interesting is that US pilots would sometimes slip across the Yalu and attack Migs in their "safe" areas in China. They wanted some easy kills.



Its true that they couldn't all be brought to tibet, not even half of them. But at least 200 or 300 fighters would have been brought there to bring the number of fighters already there to a higher level.


There were no fighters alreasdy there and it would incredibly doubtful that even 150 fighters couls be stationed their in combat readiness.


The Mig-15 has about a range of 800km. Here is a map i made showing the distances


The range would have been far less flying out of Tibetan bases at high altitude,



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
For more information how the indian airforce would have completly been useless would have been the chinese troops during korea. The area of korea is actually quite similar to the mountain peaks the chinese and indians would have fought in.

During the korean war the USAF flew 720,980 sorties and delivered 476,000 tons of weapons on chinese positions. that is about 1/6 of ALL bombs dropped in world war two on a little place called korea. Even with that massive amount of bombs the americans didn't even come close to winning the war even though they pounded the chinese from the air and from the massive amount of artillery from the 16inch cannon on the naval warships to the 105mm guns on land.

Now even with indias 200(?) possible fighters/bombers that could have been used in the war how do you think that will even match up to the USAF in numbers of weight of ordnance.

At the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the french used nalpam on the vietnamese soldiers in the jungle. They were dumping tonnes of it. Did the vietnamese bluge from the area?. Nope not even the slightest chance. Again how is the indian airforce going to get the exact location of chinese troops and use little naplam bombs to fight the chinese held up in their fight the chinese while they already had eperience againest air attacks dating from the long march and facing much MUCH greater odds than what the indians COULD have fielded.

The war in kagril, you might be familar with this one. The pakstani militants were fighting againest indian forces while about 15km inside indian territory without many supplies and managed to hold the 30,000 strong indian force and the indian airforce of the Mig-27 Mirage 2000 weren't effecitive in dislodging the pakistani defenders of rag tag militants.


'The sincerity of the Indian Air Force to participate in Kashmir's campaign was in inverse proportion to their hit rates' said an Indian Army Officer in Dras. He said for nearly three weeks after the airstrikes began on May 26, its effectiveness was 'near negligible'. In addition to losing two MIG series of fighters and one MI-17 helicopter gunship on two successive days in an environment which the Indian Air Force monopolised, the Air Force simply failed in destroying Pakistani 'sangars' (rock bunkers) or dislodging the intruders in any significant way. 'They (Air Force) were more show than go', said one Indian Army Officer in Dras.

The 'decisive battle flank' said an army officer in Dras, was the terrain and the high mountains. Sadly, the Indian Air Force pilots were unable to achieve combat effectiveness flying around 5 km above the minuscule targets and releasing their ordinance at 'safe heights'. At one point, early on in the conflict, the Indian Army is reported to have asked the Air Force to call off its airstrikes, which were not only proving ineffective, but were also posing a threat to troops ascending the hill sides.

www.defencejournal.com...


Now the only saving grance during the war were the Mirage 2000's which were able to use LGB on the targets. the indian airforce after the war had a major upgrade of the whole fleet to include LGB capability. Now this begs the question whether dumb bombs would have been effective againest a enemy which also were on similar terrain but better supplied and had air support.

If a modern airforce couldn't dislodge 3,000 troops with LGBs how do you think that the indian airforce of 1962 would do with some inaccurate rocket pods and two dumb bombs?


Fair enough if you were claiming to hit PLA bases in tibet or a long supply convey. But your talking about a dug in enemy hidden well and has expereince againest a enemy with control of the air. I have already given examples of PLA battles againest the enemy and how in-effective it was.

The Ouragon is quite similar in design to the F-80 and F-84

The Vampire is very unqiue but doing a one on one comparison is quite difficult and the hunter hawker and Gnat are all in the same league with the MiGs



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I believe, that if it were to escalate to World War proportions it would eqaute to total destruction for 2/3rds the worlds pop. at this stage in the game its a testosterone fuelled pissing comp. lets just hope that things don't go the way of the mightier, because enivitably it is only going to proove that we, as a people representing humanity are a self destructive force of nature.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I was finishing page three when i saw this, now i have to postpone it


Originally posted by mad scientist
Care to put a link to this source. I think we can all agree that whatever PLAAF bases there were in China, they would hvae been very rudimentary at best


I was talking about another thread BEFORE. That was why i was addressing Daedalus3 NOT YOU. If you want rudimentary airbase, you should ahve seen the ones in korea in 1951 when the chinese entered the war, albiet the were used for piston aircraft. But like i keep saying, the Mig-15 was damn rugged



Not to mention the sheer height of these bases would have reduced the fuel and weapons load of said planes greatly.


Sounds like you heard this from word of mouth


Because of the elevation, aircraft operating
from Tibet would be able to carry less weapon and fuel loads. As a result,
PLAAF capability to bomb Indian airfields would be extremely limited.


From your own source. Now do you have figures to tell us how big a difference it would have been instead of "it would be reduced"



As is well known the PLA had no intention of using aircraft and didn't have any forward deployed. Therefore there were no air bases full of planes.


The PLA also did not have any intention of using aircraft in korea. (first campaign had no air support). they also did not intend to use air support during the invasion of vietnam in 1979 but still kept them combat ready and forward deployed. But during the war the PLA was suppiled by helicopters.

Also you might be looking in the wrong place for your answer. try babel fish with beidu.com and ou will find your answer. But no offical figures of PLA delpoyments has ever been released


Are we actually dealing with facts here or just supposition ?


Logic



Precisely why the PLAAF would not have moved them, they were fearful of Taieanese agression. During the Korean War the Chinese only had about 800 Mig-15's, all given to them by the Soviet Union.


Not true.

The taiwanese and chinese agreed to stop the battles in 1959 which was frought over the islands the taiwanese had. I wouldn't call it a treaty as such but a truce. Taiwanese aggression was nill since the 7th fleet was guarding both sides of the war from invading. The taiwanese front already had more aircraft than its airfields could handle

The chinese airforce after the korean war numbered over 3,000 planes of all types. including La-9 and La-11s. The soviets didn't supply china with just 800 migs during the war and that was all. In total in 1960 there were 1850 Mig-15s in china in 1960 and dropping to secondary units in 1963 with the arrival of Mig-17s


Well Manchuria was heavily populated and had the necessary infrastructure to do that. Tibet for obvious reasons is the complete opposite. Also there weren't many airfields in Tibet to begin with much less proper raod and rail links.


Are we talking about the same manchuria in 1950?. Hell the whole place had seen some of the most firece fighting during the second world war. Claiming it had better infrastrue because it was more populated it, let me say ignorant?

During the second world war chengdu was a major stragtic base and most of the KMT facilities were located there. Apart from shanghai chengdu would have been the most developed place in china during that time. Building, oil were all located there during the second world war and even today it is a powerhouse in chinas interior.

But let use forget Maos great leap forward which brought many of chinas industries and war fighting capailties inland you have a area with a nation wide supply chain


Any links to that number of troops. As has already been stated the PLAAF did not set up shop in Tibet


"The CIA's Secret War in Tibet" is the main source but on-line sources can be found on google

And any search of PLA, occupation, tibet, rebellion 1959, or a combination or those. and you could try tibet 200,000 PLA. But they might not be exact figures since i got mine off a book but open source website normally state figures for that.



the INdians also did not want to strike deep into Tibet anyway with their Air Force.


Because im not replying to you and the replied to the invisble indian threat to the PLA, notice the quote from Daedalus3



The USAF knocked down a huge number of Chinese MIG-15's in the Korean War even when using inferior planes such as the F-80. When US pilots flew the Sabre they had a more than 10-1 kill ratio against Chinese pilots.


The soviets operated nearly a equal share to the chinese. Now you better not say the soviets were damn crap pilots if we have a discussion about the soviet training later on

The total loss of the USAF was 1300 planes. Websites like to state only the losses of F-86 to make it look very large in comparison. While the Mig-15 aimed for the B-29s the sabre was a escort and was battling the Mig-15.

And post-war research found that only about 370-90 planes were actually shot down and like they say "liar liar pants on fire?"




They hunted in packs because they knew one on one there was no chance of taking on the USAF, even then outnumbering USAF planes in dogfights they still took far heavier losses.


No the soviets were the ones which taught them to fight like that. It wasn't sawmming tactics they were used because the MiG-15 were waiting to intercep the planes instead of going up indiviually. And no chance on taking the USAF?. Get your head straight, they didn't win the air war


What is also interesting is that US pilots would sometimes slip across the Yalu and attack Migs in their "safe" areas in China.


On the ground re-fueling?


There were no fighters alreasdy there and it would incredibly doubtful that even 150 fighters couls be stationed their in combat readiness.


Based on?


[edit on 16-5-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by mad scientist
Not to mention the sheer height of these bases would have reduced the fuel and weapons load of said planes greatly.


Sounds like you heard this from word of mouth.


Simply fact, if you had a rudiemtnary knowlege of aerodynamics you'd realise this. Thre is no wiggle room for you. The higher an operating base the less a plane can carry - simple physics.



From your own source. Now do you have figures to tell us how big a difference it would have been instead of "it would be reduced"


NO, but it would hvae been a significant amount.



The PLA also did not have any intention of using aircraft in korea. (first campaign had no air support). they also did not intend to use air support during the invasion of vietnam in 1979 but still kept them combat ready and forward deployed. But during the war the PLA was suppiled by helicopters.


There were no planes combat ready and forward deployed in Tibet, find me one source which says there were.




Are we actually dealing with facts here or just supposition ?


Logic


So supposition, as you proveide absolutely no evidence of what you state.


The taiwanese and chinese agreed to stop the battles in 1959 which was frought over the islands the taiwanese had. I wouldn't call it a treaty as such but a truce. Taiwanese aggression was nill since the 7th fleet was guarding both sides of the war from invading. The taiwanese front already had more aircraft than its airfields could handle.


The Chinese still thougth that they'd be a Taiwanese invasion, especially if teh 7th fleet was there
Mao was paranoid about the KMT crossing the straits, as can be evidenced by the bulk of the PLA being stationed in that area.


The chinese airforce after the korean war numbered over 3,000 planes of all types. including La-9 and La-11s. The soviets didn't supply china with just 800 migs during the war and that was all. In total in 1960 there were 1850 Mig-15s in china in 1960 and dropping to secondary units in 1963 with the arrival of Mig-17s


Well La-9's and 11's would haev extraordinary trouble using the high altitude airfileds in Tibet, so they aren't even worth mentioaning. They are WW2 era fughters and no doubt SOviet surplus.



Are we talking about the same manchuria in 1950?. Hell the whole place had seen some of the most firece fighting during the second world war. Claiming it had better infrastrue because it was more populated it, let me say ignorant?


Erm, it is far easier reaparing infrastructure in a hospitable environment than having to build infrastructure in an inhospitable environment. Ask anyone
Lets see, so your saying a sparsely populated place with bugger all population has better infrastructure than a heavily populated region. Duh, come on save the ignorant commetns for yourself




The total loss of the USAF was 1300 planes. Websites like to state only the losses of F-86 to make it look very large in comparison. While the Mig-15 aimed for the B-29s the sabre was a escort and was battling the Mig-15.


They cmpare fighter planes losses to fighter plane losses, it is wholly ridiculous to compare bombers to fighters. Simple fact in air to air combat the Sabre had a better than 10-1 kill ratio than the Chinese.


And post-war research found that only about 370-90 planes were actually shot down and like they say "liar liar pants on fire?"


Erm the Soviets officially admit to a loss of 345 planes in Korea. so your saying that inferior CHines pilots only lost 25-45 planes. LMAO, plaese do some research.



No the soviets were the ones which taught them to fight like that. It wasn't sawmming tactics they were used because the MiG-15 were waiting to intercep the planes instead of going up indiviually. And no chance on taking the USAF?. Get your head straight, they didn't win the air war


The Soviets taught them that because they weren't very skilled pilots, they had no choice. That was the quickest and easiest way to mkae them effective.



What is also interesting is that US pilots would sometimes slip across the Yalu and attack Migs in their "safe" areas in China.


On the ground re-fueling?


Erm no, because they would have destroyed most of the PLAAF if they'd done that. THey would attack the Migs over their bases, which they thought was a safe haven. Officially it was , US pilots couldn't cross the border, but some did




There were no fighters alreasdy there and it would incredibly doubtful that even 150 fighters couls be stationed their in combat readiness.


Based on?


The PLA order of battle for 1962.




[edit on 16-5-2006 by mad scientist]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Simply fact, if you had a rudiemtnary knowlege of aerodynamics you'd realise this. Thre is no wiggle room for you. The higher an operating base the less a plane can carry - simple physics.


Please in laymens terms,

A high bypass engine would have trouble operating in altitude even though chinese Mig-15s were operating at 30,000 feet in korea?. Please im not getting "simple physics


And why does aerodynamics have to do anything with engines?


NO, but it would hvae been a significant amount.


Significant implies any number. What you need to do is to back the significant with a numeral


There were no planes combat ready and forward deployed in Tibet, find me one source which says there were.


No one can prove if they were or were not there, only the CCP could tell you force deployments. But if you want do have rough estimates of possible numbers you find a average airfield with J-7s or other smaller fighters like 31st Fighter Division and compare the number planes to airfields and you get a comparative number.

well considering they have a air field with no planes



The Chinese still thougth that they'd be a Taiwanese invasion, especially if teh 7th fleet was there Mao was paranoid about the KMT crossing the straits, as can be evidenced by the bulk of the PLA being stationed in that area.


Really the bulk of the PLA there?

During that time the PLA was more active on other fronts, the great leap forward for one. The proper structure wasn't one division and having them in one location but each vilage/commune having a division to look after. The PLA and the milita could not be distingushed in uniform or arms. But this was the 1960s and the plictical fevour not brought into the late 60s or 70s

Well to be affaid of a taiwanese invasion?. That should be the other way round, Jiang jie shi was on the defensive and the chinese knew it. The jiang jie shi threats to re-invade the mainland lost its worth after mac arthar was sacked. The 7th fleet was a barrier for bother forces not jut for the KMT


Well La-9's and 11's would haev extraordinary trouble using the high altitude airfileds in Tibet, so they aren't even worth mentioaning.


Again yet to be proven,

I did not mean that they were going to be used in tibet but were part of the korean war airforce to say that china had a bigger force than just Mig-15s



Ask anyone
Lets see, so your saying a sparsely populated place with bugger all population has better infrastructure than a heavily populated region. Duh, come on save the ignorant commetns for yourself


Well you missed my point.

I meant that manchuria wasn't heavily populated during the 50s and even the 60s. When the chinese government started their communes program did it really start getting populated.

And the infrastructure?. Who built it and when?. The only areas of china that could be considered worthy for modern roads would have been in urban industrial areas would have been shanghai which was a open port and western area. I dont see how the boder with korea would have been considered better infrastructure than the barren land of tibet which is very flat and barren. If you search for tibet in google you will see how flat the surface is


They cmpare fighter planes losses to fighter plane losses, it is wholly ridiculous to compare bombers to fighters.


Why dont we compare all fighters lost then?

And it is ridiculous to compare one fighter type which was aiming for bombers while the other type was aiming for fighters and call it a even fight?. What about those odds


Simple fact in air to air combat the Sabre had a better than 10-1 kill ratio than the Chinese.


Yet post-war data proved less than half of those "claimed" were actually proven kills. Yet you still are quoting from the USAF handbook even though new netural edvidence has already disproved that


Erm the Soviets officially admit to a loss of 345 planes in Korea. so your saying that inferior CHines pilots only lost 25-45 planes. LMAO, plaese do some research.


Before you come and throw you wikipedia knowledge around you should double check your information

The documents they are talking about are ones released after the cold war which stated that 345 MiGs were lost. They include chinese planes (which is not very clearly written in wikipedia) as well as korean planes. This was only found out later on which impemented the soviets in the korean war which they denied during the cold war.

So how could the american pilots even know whether it was chinese, soviet or korean? Ball in your court


The Soviets taught them that because they weren't very skilled pilots, they had no choice. That was the quickest and easiest way to mkae them effective.


No,

The germans did it, the soviets still do it, Its part of a tactic called a air intercept. Yep common event. It was standard practice to intercept as a group. Look at B-17 flights over germany or the battle of britian

And it wasn't about skills it was about training. Chinese pilots on average had 2 hours training before taking a MiG-15 into the sky, while the americans were seasoned WW2 pilots. It still had nothing to do since even the soveit honchos would use the MiG-15s high altitude advantage to jump the other fighters


Erm no, because they would have destroyed most of the PLAAF if they'd done that. THey would attack the Migs over their bases, which they thought was a safe haven.


You mean the yalu river AA screen?

Yeah lambs to the slaughter


The PLA order of battle for 1962.


Oh really,

You might like to share



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
ok.. this thread has now been officially hijacked..


Chinawhite, we can only project after doing thorough research of PLAAF orbat of 1962, what the actual deployment of PLAAF fighter was at that time. Also your comparisions to Kargil are quite incorrect..
I need time to scan everything properly and then respond..



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
ok.. this thread has now been officially hijacked..


lol.

You hijacked it a couple of pages back

The topic
"How would the US fare in the next world war?"

And ill be just waiting for your reply


Also your comparisions to Kargil are quite incorrect..


why?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
AAARGGHHH!! too much work!!.. can't respond till the weekend..



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
AAARGGHHH!! too much work!!.. can't respond till the weekend..


I had the same problem, had to force myself to write

I might finish my 3rd and maybe a 4th one tommorrow



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by mad scientist
Simply fact, if you had a rudiemtnary knowlege of aerodynamics you'd realise this. Thre is no wiggle room for you. The higher an operating base the less a plane can carry - simple physics.


Please in laymens terms,

A high bypass engine would have trouble operating in altitude even though chinese Mig-15s were operating at 30,000 feet in korea?. Please im not getting "simple physics


And why does aerodynamics have to do anything with engines?


Are you serious
You don't understand the realtionship of aerodynamics and engine capacity in relation to lift ?

In laymens terms, at higher altitude the wings of a plane have less lift due to thinner air, reducing the takeoff weight. This can be remedied in 2 ways, a plane can carry less or a more powerful engine is needed. Since they couldn't just change the engine out, then obviously they would have to reduce takeoff weight.




No one can prove if they were or were not there, only the CCP could tell you force deployments. But if you want do have rough estimates of possible numbers you find a average airfield with J-7s or other smaller fighters like 31st Fighter Division and compare the number planes to airfields and you get a comparative number.


So you hvae no evidence excpet your own conjecture





Well La-9's and 11's would haev extraordinary trouble using the high altitude airfileds in Tibet, so they aren't even worth mentioaning.


Again yet to be proven,

I did not mean that they were going to be used in tibet but were part of the korean war airforce to say that china had a bigger force than just Mig-15s


LOL, not to be proven obvious fact. If a more efficient jet enginr has problems at high altitutude tehn of course a WW2 prop fighter will





I meant that manchuria wasn't heavily populated during the 50s and even the 60s. When the chinese government started their communes program did it really start getting populated.


Manchuria had a large population, easily into teh millions. Don't know what you're talking about.


And the infrastructure?. Who built it and when?. The only areas of china that could be considered worthy for modern roads would have been in urban industrial areas would have been shanghai which was a open port and western area.


The Japanese built extensive infrastructure in Manchuria, including railways, whilst they were administering it.




And it is ridiculous to compare one fighter type which was aiming for bombers while the other type was aiming for fighters and call it a even fight?. What about those odds


Erm, you don't make any sense. What was aiming for bombers ? Are you saying plenty of Migs were shot down by bombers ? Otherwise comparing Mig/Sabre dogfoghts is the only logical way.



et post-war data proved less than half of those "claimed" were actually proven kills. Yet you still are quoting from the USAF handbook even though new netural edvidence has already disproved that


As was said the Soviets lost 345 Migs, the Chinese would ave lost at least twice that number. Even the Soviets remarked at the poor quality of the PLAAF.



The documents they are talking about are ones released after the cold war which stated that 345 MiGs were lost. They include chinese planes (which is not very clearly written in wikipedia) as well as korean planes. This was only found out later on which impemented the soviets in the korean war which they denied during the cold war.


Nopr just Soviet Migs, PLAAF losses were separate. You should read more carefully. I don't use wikipedia although I know it's your primary source.




And it wasn't about skills it was about training. Chinese pilots on average had 2 hours training before taking a MiG-15 into the sky, while the americans were seasoned WW2 pilots. It still had nothing to do since even the soveit honchos would use the MiG-15s high altitude advantage to jump the other fighters


LOL, the SOviets knew that the PLAAF was dead meat if they didn't engage the UN with vastly superior numbers, even tehn the PLAAF usually came off second best. As was said before the USSR didn't hold much respect for the skills of CHinese pilots.



You mean the yalu river AA screen?

Yeah lambs to the slaughter


LMAO, what AA screen ? There was bugger all. Even if theire had been AA guns, especially manual ones are useless against jet fighters. Get a grip.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
bump.

Ill answer this in a week, got exams



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Are you serious
You don't understand the realtionship of aerodynamics and engine capacity in relation to lift ?


By that statment you clearly dont.....and im serious.

Using words you dont have a clue about doesn't make you look/seem any smarter. And when used in combination shows how much you know about lift or physics. It seems like you just said whatever came to our mind


In laymens terms, at higher altitude the wings of a plane have less lift due to thinner air, reducing the takeoff weight.

LOL, not to be proven obvious fact. If a more efficient jet enginr has problems at high altitutude tehn of course a WW2 prop fighter will



yeah....

Refer to Bernoulli's theorem. If you get the formula and if you have done physics you will find that air density is miminal and almost non-existant to even be considered a factor. By this logic, a prop plane with a larger wing surface would have more lift than a jet fighter with a smaller lift surface. Thiner air........

I thought you were going to stament the obvious reason. The air up higher is less dense than the air below. A jet engine uses air and fuel to create thrust. Take one of the steps out and you have less thrust and have to compensate with increased fuel usage. If you put one and one together you get a plane with less range.

Also a jet engine is not as efficent as a prop plane. Jet engines offered more speed than a prop plane and that was the main reasons its was changed


So you hvae no evidence excpet your own conjecture


Like that orbat of the PLAAF in 1962 ou forgot to mention in your next post...aye?. Whens that going to come by the way?



Manchuria had a large population, easily into teh millions. Don't know what you're talking about.


And so did tibet. Numbering 2-3million depending on the source. And of course you wouldn't know what im talking about becuse your lacking in chinese history. The real population of mancuria came during the '50s when cities like Harbin were really turned into a large industrial city.

Also the northern states of china get most of their food from central-western and southern areas of china because the climate there is freezing cold. One other reason why it would ahve been so hard to supply food


The Japanese built extensive infrastructure in Manchuria, including railways,


They might have built railways when they were administraing it but they built narrow gauge tracks with 700mm compared to the standard russian and chinese 1000mm -1050mm. Big difference in length. And at the time there were no carriages which could go on them because the japanese carriages were either unservicable due to lack of spare parts because they went out of production in '45 (and there already but serice record) or they were destroyed in the russian offensive.

Most of the tracks were relaid in the first five year plan

But you are talking about a gap of 5 years between japanese surrender and the korean war. Manchuria saw the most intensive fighting of the chinese civil war. If you had a idea of how the war was fought you would know how badly the rail network was in 1949. The KMT by 1947 was using cities as fortesses while the cmmunsit were in the country side. The only connection those forteses had were by air and rail. They couldn't target the air network so the only option was to target the rail network.

By the time in the korean war, china had seen war for almost 100 years. In 1962 china was centrally controlled and better organized than during the korean war and able to supply a army offnsive beter. Not to mention that Chengdu was more developed than Manchuria if we have a 1950 comaprison to a 1962 comparison


Erm, you don't make any sense. What was aiming for bombers ?


The Mig-15 was developed as a interceptor and was deployed as a interceptor, hence its heavy armament. The Mig-15s in the korean war were used to target bombers and attacks which meant it wouldn't be there dog fighting sabres. Hence the Mig-15s were trying to kill B-29s while the sabre was trying to kill the Mig-15s.


As was said the Soviets lost 345 Migs, the Chinese would ave lost at least twice that number.


No.

The US claimed 792 Mig-15 shot down during the whole war. Using post-war research only 370+ fighters were porven. Hence it was a 4:1 ratio even though the Mig-15 was not employed to destory sabres. And speculating on chinese losses....


Nopr just Soviet Migs, PLAAF losses were separate. You should read more carefully. I don't use wikipedia although I know it's your primary source.


No they weren't.

The post-war reports were the soviet unions assement of the korean war outcome, they included ALL aircraft because they were under a central control.


Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat.

Site by a korean war veteran

And the I know you are but what i am defence....pff


LOL, the SOviets knew that the PLAAF was dead meat if they didn't engage the UN with vastly superior numbers, even tehn the PLAAF usually came off second best. As was said before the USSR didn't hold much respect for the skills of CHinese pilots.


Now your the USSR...........I would like to see proof of that instead of your opinion, Thinner air...

And vastly superior numbers?. Its common for the intercepting force to outnumber the attacking force. Refer to the bombering raids on germany in the early years of 1942-43 and see how big the ratio was. Now you also going to claim german pilots were bad pilots because they used the same tactics or your going to employ double standards


LMAO, what AA screen ? There was bugger all. Even if theire had been AA guns, especially manual ones are useless against jet fighters. Get a grip.


Get a grip?. how childish

If you actually do korean on the korean war, Only 10% of US aircraft shot down were in AA combat. The rest was done with good ole AA guns. and how are they useless againest jet aircraft?. Do you kow how much planes were shot down in vietnam with manual AA guns.

Also if you read any reports when sabres or any other plane went over the yalu they were met by a hail of AA guns

[edit on 4-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by mad scientist
Are you serious
You don't understand the realtionship of aerodynamics and engine capacity in relation to lift ?


By that statment you clearly dont.....and im serious.

Using words you dont have a clue about doesn't make you look/seem any smarter. And when used in combination shows how much you know about lift or physics. It seems like you just said whatever came to our mind.


So you still doin't understand
Can't make it any simpler than I already have. Keep going, I know you don't mid making yourself look foolish.



Refer to Bernoulli's theorem. If you get the formula and if you have done physics you will find that air density is miminal and almost non-existant to even be considered a factor. By this logic, a prop plane with a larger wing surface would have more lift than a jet fighter with a smaller lift surface. Thiner air........


Once again the usual ramble, to try and deflect people away from your ineptitude. Most jet fighters had a greater wing surface area than propr fighters
What's your point.
Air density matters a hell of a lot when you are trying to take off with a heavy takeoff weight



I thought you were going to stament the obvious reason. The air up higher is less dense than the air below. A jet engine uses air and fuel to create thrust. Take one of the steps out and you have less thrust and have to compensate with increased fuel usage. If you put one and one together you get a plane with less range.


Once again you don't understand. Once a jet is up to speed, the air is compressed into the jet engine, however when it isn't at speed the air density makes a huge difference.
Jets are actually far more efficient a high altitude due to less drag and use less fuel.


Also a jet engine is not as efficent as a prop plane. Jet engines offered more speed than a prop plane and that was the main reasons its was changed


LOL, jets are far more efficient than prop planes, gawd this is getting laughable. God knows where you get your information from.



They might have built railways when they were administraing it but they built narrow gauge tracks with 700mm compared to the standard russian and chinese 1000mm -1050mm. Big difference in length. And at the time there were no carriages which could go on them because the japanese carriages were either unservicable due to lack of spare parts because they went out of production in '45 (and there already but serice record) or they were destroyed in the russian offensive.


Ahem, please provide a link to where you got this.


The KMT by 1947 was using cities as fortesses while the cmmunsit were in the country side. The only connection those forteses had were by air and rail. They couldn't target the air network so the only option was to target the rail network.


And ? Railways are easily repared especially with all the labour manpower CHina has. Just look at Germany in WW2, they were almost bombbed flat, yet teh trains kept running.



The Mig-15 was developed as a interceptor and was deployed as a interceptor, hence its heavy armament. The Mig-15s in the korean war were used to target bombers and attacks which meant it wouldn't be there dog fighting sabres. Hence the Mig-15s were trying to kill B-29s while the sabre was trying to kill the Mig-15s.


Oh pluhease, there are plenty of reports of dogfights with US Sabres and China/Russian Migs. Not only was the Mig quicker, it carried a heavier armament, yet the US still managed to blow them away in large numbers. US pilots were just too superior, especially to the Chinese.



And vastly superior numbers?. Its common for the intercepting force to outnumber the attacking force. Refer to the bombering raids on germany in the early years of 1942-43 and see how big the ratio was. Now you also going to claim german pilots were bad pilots because they used the same tactics or your going to employ double standards.


Erm no the attacking force usually out numbered the defending force. Especailly as you refer to Germay in 1943-1945. Chinese pilots were just undertrained at best.



If you actually do korean on the korean war, Only 10% of US aircraft shot down were in AA combat. The rest was done with good ole AA guns. and how are they useless againest jet aircraft?. Do you kow how much planes were shot down in vietnam with manual AA guns.


Bollocks, where did you get this ? provide a link. Obviously ground attack aircraft ar emore susceptible to groud fire. How mnay Sabres were lsot to AAA ? none.
As for Vietnam, almost all major AAA was radar guided, so bugger all planes were shot down using manual guns.
You can't seem to make any distinction vetween ground attack and fighter planes as well.



Also if you read any reports when sabres or any other plane went over the yalu they were met by a hail of AA guns.


Sorry, your imagination does not count as a report. Care to at least providesome evidence of this ? Even if they were - which they weren't - manually aimed AAA guns are almost useless against jets.

LOL, I waited a few weeks for this - not even worth teh effort.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by mad scientist]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join