Comments: 42
WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-10 05:21:02 +0000 UTC]
I'm noticing that most of the kills attributed to the Korean Yak-9s were either bombers or transports.
Any word on what became of Yak '24'?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-11 01:04:35 +0000 UTC]
Sadly, there seems to be no record of who flew Yak '24', or what happened to her in the end. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WereOwl-In-Wisconsin In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-16 06:26:48 +0000 UTC]
Another detail of history lost to the Memory Hole, I guess...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WereOwl-In-Wisconsin In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-17 01:06:01 +0000 UTC]
Let's take the "1984" comparison all the way... assuming the pilot of 'Yak 24' survived the war, he was probably Unpersoned for some reason, and all record of his existence deliberately destroyed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-17 02:09:36 +0000 UTC]
Nah, it's nowhere near that extreme.
It's unlikely '24' had a fixed pilot; more likely aircraft of a squadron were pooled, with pilots merely flying the aircraft which were airworthy at the time. Given the combat attrition, generally poor maintenance and lack of spare parts, the North Korean Air Force wasn't the most effective fighting force at the time.
Plus, one has to remember that following the Inchon Landings of September 15th 1950, the North Korean Front collapsed in a matter of weeks, with troops falling back from the perimeter surrounding Pusan all the way to Unsan in North Korea, some 300 miles further up north. Many North Korean air bases were abandoned, in some cases with aircraft being left behind - so I really don't expect they would have done things like recovering individual aircraft log books, even if these were diligently kept in the first place (which I somehow doubt).
So even if '24' or its logs initially survived, it is likely that the documentation of the aircraft is incomplete at best, and even the North Koreans themselves would be unable to say nowadays who flew it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WereOwl-In-Wisconsin In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-21 21:37:01 +0000 UTC]
So it's more likely Occam's Razor at work? That's probably right... it's just that North Korea is so very much the physical embodiment of "Nineteen Eighty-Four", it's easy to assume that the lack of information was a deliberate choice.
If it's impossible to tell the difference between information being lost because of the chaotic nature of war, and information lost because the government actively tries to manipulate the very fabric of reality, does the difference even matter at that point?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-23 01:14:26 +0000 UTC]
Don't forget, back then the DPRK's system wasn't nearly as well-developed as it is now, one could nearly say both sides were nearly as dictatorial and corrupt, just that they had other 'big friends' to play with.
But yes, most dictatorial systems find it is easier to preserve records than to destroy them, even in a regime as evil as the Nazis it's amazing to see how detailled things were recorded and preserved. Not too long ago I happened to stumble on some documents that showed clearly how the fog of war can cause even clearly recorded data to become inaccessible, I happened to discover an example of how a surrendering soldier ended up captured by the Western Allies and being acquitted because there was little information to indicate he had been involved in War Crimes - yet the Soviets having disposal of a full record of what he had been involved in, but in their reluctance to share the information with their former Western allies - now turned ideological enemies for the next 45 years - creating the conditions that allowed him to go free and live a full life, instead of facing the justice he deserved...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
County1006 In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-14 19:25:02 +0000 UTC]
Well deserved as always mate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kanyiko In reply to Berta29 [2017-12-19 16:29:25 +0000 UTC]
Thank you! ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
gummy-gundam [2017-11-13 04:10:10 +0000 UTC]
a little hard on oil!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-18 18:31:52 +0000 UTC]
It certainly wasn't a bad aircraft - by all accounts, it was better than the F-51D the Americans used in the early days of the conflict - but unfortunately for them, the North Korean pilots lacked training. After all, the KPAAF had only been set up the previous year, and few pilots had any combat experience, this while most of the US pilots were veterans of the Second World War...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-20 02:55:45 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, the F-51D was a great aircraft during WWII, but by the time Korea came around it was really showing its age.
On the other hand, all that WWII experience really paid off!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-20 03:11:20 +0000 UTC]
The P-51D was not the aircraft the USAF had wanted to send into the Korean War.
On the one hand, they felt the P-51H would have made a better choice, being a faster, more powerful fighter aircraft - but it was only available in relatively small numbers, its production having been curtailed after VJ-Day. (555 built out of 2000 ordered) Added to that, there was a distrust in its lighter construction, with some believing it would not be able to absorb the amount of battle damage the P-51D variant could withstand.
On the other hand, they felt the F-47D would have made a better ground-attack aircraft with its far less vulnerable radial engine - but the F-47D had been considered an obsoleted type after WWII, and had thus been handed down to numerous other air forces in Europe and South America, with only few remaining in service in the USAF by 1950... >.<
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-26 00:01:24 +0000 UTC]
I remember the one time that I came up close with the A-10 Thunderbolt in its natural surroundings - at the time I was a boyscout, on a trek through the Ardennes with the rest of my troop. All of a sudden we heard a thunder, and looking up, we saw two Hogs roaring over us, close enough for me to notice its load-out and markings - I still have those notes somewhere.
Not even five minutes later, the two Hogs were back, again passing over us in the forest, this time slightly banked so I could see them from the side.
It's only later when the penny dropped. We were in a large forest, a mile or so from the nearest village. Our group must have made a hell of a target underneath the forest's canopy for the FLIRs of those Hogs. "Scratch one target - twice!"...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-26 01:37:17 +0000 UTC]
I love the A-10! I've seen them in the air several times, and on the ground lots (at SeaTac airport in WA). It would be very cool to be the subject of a close pass by one!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-26 02:25:08 +0000 UTC]
I only ever saw them on the ground twice - they've since become rare over at this end of the puddle. Enduring Freedom saw the Sprangdalheim (Germany)-based Thunderbolt units withdrawn; rather than returning afterwards, they were replaced by ground-attack F-16 units...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-27 03:43:59 +0000 UTC]
I don't know what they use them for in Seattle, but it's super cool to come in on a commercial flight and pass by them as you taxi in to the gate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Billie-Bonce [2017-11-11 22:08:35 +0000 UTC]
Yakovlev is now considered as a pretty controversial person in history of the USSR aviation. On one hand, the designs of his bureau were rather good, taking into account the overall shortage of good construction materials and low level of technological discipline. It was hard to do better in that environment, not to mention that after the invasion started all aviation industry had to be moved to the east and to start production literally in the bare fields. And actually, Yak-3 really was superior when it appeared. The score of kills in its favor was such that the Germans issued the recommendation to the pilots to avoid dogfights with them.
On the other hand, Yakovlev was the deputy minister of aviation industry, and it was admitted later that he used his position and Stalin's favor to promote own designs and to demote other designs, sometimes with dramatic consequences to other designers. It was literally a pure fortuity that Lavochkin's La-5 was finally accepted, despite what Yakovlev reported to Stalin and despite the skills (or the lack of such) of the pilot who demonstrated La-5 to Stalin in comparison to Yak (7 or 9 - IDK). And, now they say that the last Polikarpov's design, I-185, actually was superior to both Yak-9 and La-5, but Yakovlev did his best to convince Stalin that it was not ready (while actually it was).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MensjeDeZeemeermin [2017-11-11 21:46:00 +0000 UTC]
Nasty little plane to fight in simulation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to MensjeDeZeemeermin [2017-11-11 22:08:31 +0000 UTC]
Lighter and more agile than the Mustang itself (or indeed the Bf 109 and Fw 190); the Yak-9 was the first Soviet type to score a Me 262.
Its only real weak point was its engine - the VK-105 series of the early series lacked a supercharger, so it fared badly at altitude.
Because of its many trials and tribulations, North Korea used a number of variants - it did have some of the later Yak-9U and Yak-9P variants, but also numerous (early) Yak-9D's, and even a handful of Yak-9T's with the heavy 37-mm cannon...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MensjeDeZeemeermin In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-11 23:07:25 +0000 UTC]
I wonder if they got that 37 off P-39s and P-63s...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to MensjeDeZeemeermin [2017-11-11 23:44:12 +0000 UTC]
They actually didn't. The NS-37 was developed separately from the M4 autocannon; while it was heavier (140 kg when underwing mounted; 170 when mounted through the engine banks compared to the 97 kg of the M4), it had a much higher rate of fire (260 rounds per minute vs the 150 rounds per minute of the M4). The ammo was also differently chambered (37x198mm for the NS-37; 37x145mm for the M4), so the ammo was not interchangable.
Similarly, the British, Germans and Japanese all had equivalent weapons.
The British weapon was the 37-mm Ordonance QF 1 1/2 pounder C.O.W. gun, originally designed as an anti-bomber weapon in 1918. It was never really operationally used, but did eventually evolve into the 40-mm Vickers S gun, which was used as an aerial anti-tank gun during World War II.
QF 1 1/2 pdr C.O.W.: 91 kg; 90 rounds per minute firing rate; 37x190mm High-Explosive round.
Vickers S gun: 134 kg; 100 rounds per minute firing rate; 40x158mm round.
The Germans fielded the BK 3,7 gun, which was an aerial development of the 1935 FlAK 18. As such, it was considerably heavier (295 kg) than its specifically airborne-designed counterparts; it had a 160 rounds per minute firing rate, and was chambered for 37x263mm rounds. Fitted to the Bf 110G-2/R1/3, Junkers Ju 88P-2/3, Junkers Ju 87G-1/2 and Henschell Hs 129B-2/R3, it was specifically used in the aerial anti-tank gun role.
The Japanese developed the Ho-203 gun from the 11 Type infantry gun. It was the lightest among all of these guns (90 kg), and had a 120 rounds per minute fire rate; it was chambered for 37x112mm rounds. It was only fitted to the Kawasaki Ki-45-KAI Toryu and Mitsubishi Ki-46-III-KAI Dinah, in both cases as a heavy anti-bomber weapon; the Toryu's gun was mounted for forward fire while on the Dinah it was installed in an oblique (upward-firing) attitude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to benitezdk [2017-11-11 14:25:09 +0000 UTC]
I have a horrible feeling it might not be long before I have to write a similar article involving F/A-18E's, F-22A's and MiG-29s... V_V
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kanyiko In reply to benitezdk [2017-11-11 15:50:46 +0000 UTC]
*cough*
By that I mean, ... the involvement of the F/A-18E, F-22A and MiG-29 in the Second Korean War of 2018... V_V
👍: 0 ⏩: 1