Actually until the advent of the F-86-E, the Mig was faster, had a better rate of climb , ceiling, acceleration, the F-86 could out turn the Mig and had a better dive speed, but it took until the F-86-F before the Saber was better then the Mig across the board. Training was the key, and the radar gunsite, it gave the American Pilot a great shooting advantage over the Mig pilot..
Actually, when you look at the conventional conflicts in the Middle East, Russian Tactics, against the Western Tactics, the American and Western Battle Doctrine has always crushed the Soviet and Russian Battle Doctrine. Israeli and Arab Wars being a prime example. Israel: 264,000 (incl. 214,000 reserve troops) 300 combat aircraft 800 tanks The Arabs: Egypt: 240,000 Syria, Jordan, and Iraq: 307,000 957 combat aircraft 2,504 tanks That is 3 to 1 in Troops, 3 to one in Aircraft, 3 to 1 in Tanks, and Western Tactical Doctrine crushed the Arabs and their Soviet Doctrine and Weapons.
Those are limited wars and you know it. There is limited assets to the order of battle and they are not really replaced like they would with major(or super) powers.
We'd kick their ass. But, if we didn't, it might look like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course, we'd never put up with damned, dirty commies defiling McDonalds! If they dared invade, they'd soon have to deal with: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen! Not to mention Leah Thompson and Erin Grey. Those damned Ruskies never had a chance.....
I was trying to remember the name of that movie earlier.. thanks there is one thing that seem to be left of of this war scenario and that's ideology, the human element and while I posted a picture of a McD's in Moscow and said we won. The truth is they were the winners.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! All people desire freedom http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sting/russians_20132086.html
What war are you talking about? In the six day war the arab countries had a lot of hardware that they purchased from the soviets, but not much military training. In the yom kippur war the egyptians had extensive soviet training, and did quite a bit better (although they admittedly still lost). But as nietzschefan correctly pointed out, those were limited wars; both sides just bought a bunch of weapons and then fought with them. The sort of war that fedr808 is talking about would have a lot more to do with industrial output and willingness. Anyway, as others have pointed out, I don't think either side could conquer the other. Although russia might have been able to roll over all of europe.
Actually the F-86 had a better rate of climb because since it was meant to be an emergancy intercepter the people whom made it gave it an absurdly high amount of wing surface, this also helped it to out turn the mig by alot. And th eF-86 im pretty sure had more higher calibre weapons.
No, check the numbers until the F-86-F, the Mig-15 had the edge in climb rates, and altitude. Yes, the F-86 was a better engineered weapon system, but the Mig-15 was no slouch as a combat system. The one engineering problem that caused problem for the Mig in combat was the T tail that they used, in the high transonic range, it had a tendency to stress and separate in hard maneuvers. One other problem was the hinged elevators, again the T tail design led to air flow over the tail surface, and creating a vacuum in the High Transonic around the control surface so that it has no air flow over it's surface to affect the pitch of the Aircraft.
Now, if you care to check, the vast majority of Soviets Troops were little better trained than the Arabs. Kid pulled from across the expanses of the Soviet Union, and given minim military training. The Soviets had some very good special forces, but their average soldier was given only minimal training, not much better that what most of the Arabs received. Soviet doctrine still looks at the grunt as cannon fodder, thrown at a target in mass. Just look at the quality of their track systems, from my access to intelligence report when I was in the military, the Soviets lose 1/3 of their tanks to mechanical break down, in any move over 88km. Even as late as 1988 when I left service, Soviet tanks platoons still were operating with only one tank with a full transmitter and receiver, the other 2 only had receivers, and most communication between tanks was through hand signal, light, and flag. The gun system of the Soviet tanks, used a automatic loader system, which cycled at 17 second per round, in a American Tank, we could fire 3 aimed rounds in 17 seconds. Hell the Polish Military, before issuing tanks received from the Soviet Union, sent them through rebuilt from the Tracks up. The best tanks in the Warsaw Pact were the Polish Rebuilds, they moved, shot, and communicated. The other thing to look at is the ergonomics of their systems, Soviet systems are not friendly to the human body.
I should have been more clear; when I said that the egyptians had training from the soviets during the yom kippur war but not the six day war, I meant training in battle doctrine, not that the front-line soldiers themselves were actually trained by the soviets (although I guess they might have been, I don't really know). The egyptians did a hell of a lot better fighting according to soviet doctrine than they did in the six day war, where they tried to fight using their home-grown doctrine. Their infantry also did amazingly well in the opening stages of the war. In fact pretty much everything was going in their favor, until they broke soviet doctrine and tried to advance beyond their AA coverage, at which point they got massively pounded by the israeli airforce. Although like I said, they did still end up losing.
That doesnt mean they were losing before they broke aa cover, it just means there was a stalemate, And also, they only lost a fraction of their troops who had left the cover of their aa weapons.
The bankers would have won. As far as a war of attrition goes, I don't think one side could attack the other and win on the defender's soil. If they were to fight on neutral ground I'd say the one fighting closer to home would have the advantage due to supply chain considerations. One of the reasons Germany lost in Russia is because they ran out of beans, bullets, and band aids.
I aspire to such confidence. Militaries based on the NATO model have shown since WWII that combat multipliers can be stunningly effective too.
