--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 　於　2000/10/27 21:09
發表內容：

亨利﹐
韓戰資料﹐個人還得去庫房挖﹐找到會貼出來﹗

當時全韓國+美國也沒有一萬架飛機﹐很明顯﹐那些人在撒謊﹐
吹牛﹗

還有﹐個人知道﹐那些在外獨搗亂的網渣令人厭惡﹐這也是
個人已經很久沒上該站﹐連看都不想看﹐就是因為煩惡﹗

但是﹐懇請老兄﹐切莫在小弟網站用“支那”一詞﹗小弟
厭惡那些中國網渣如同厭惡“支那”一詞一般﹗

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

路過的人 　於　2000/10/27 23:03
發表內容：

〝一萬架飛機的神話〞又來啦...
又是PLA那不學無術的土八路麼？
根據我手中的資料...
美國空軍(USAF)於韓戰共損失971架飛機，
包含空戰損失及對地炸射之損失...

小弟手中並無美國海軍及其他聯軍之戰損數字，
但很明顯的，戰損數量不可能超過美國空軍...

就算再加上非戰鬥損失...
損失總數絕不可能達到10000架！

資料來源：

Rolling Thunder
Jet Combat from World War II to The Gulf War
Chapter 3: Jet on Jet, P-97

Author:Ivan Rendall

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
空62R戰鬥工兵 　於　2000/10/27 23:37
發表內容：

大哥們﹐拜託一下好不好﹐人家新中國一畝田可以產萬斤糧﹐打掉萬把架飛機你管得著﹖﹖
其實就讓他們這樣自淫也好﹐精神麻醉嘛﹐就讓他們真以為小學沒畢業的菜鳥飛行員可以打下美軍王牌嘛﹐就讓他們繼續一年飛60小時嘛﹐這不正中咱們下懷﹖別擾人清夢啦﹗

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
來自元元的默默 　於　2000/10/27 23:44
發表內容：

小滬尾兄:
其實playboy已經為這萬餘架的問題提出很好的解釋,只能說中共的統計數字是大大的灌水了,詳情請看:
http://www.gati.org.tw/chat/index.php3?read+972616954

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
路過的人 　於　2000/10/27 23:46
發表內容：

空特兄：
呵呵...您說得也是喔！

小弟與小滬尾兄都是學理工的，
凡事都先講數據資料...大概是太嚴肅啦！

希望對岸的自大白癡們堅信這些神話...
重紅不重專，一年飛30小時就好！

再向您致意！
空特及海陸的弟兄一向是小弟敬佩的！

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

空62R戰鬥工兵 　於　2000/10/27 23:57
發表內容：

路兄好﹗
小弟也是學理工的﹐但比較疏懶一點﹐就只好看看大家的數據過癮了。

小弟當年在部隊論體能戰技實在是肉腳級的人物﹐辦辦參三業務還行﹐您的敬意我代我的傘兵弟兄們收下了﹐個人實在不敢獨當。

希望您和小滬兄繼續發表高見﹐大家都看得很過癮哪﹗

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

空62R戰鬥工兵 　於　2000/10/28 00:13
發表內容：

我的意思是相對于我的傘兵弟兄們﹐個人實在很肉腳﹐並不是說傘兵部隊肉腳噢﹐共匪們不必偷笑啦﹗

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2000/10/28 01:05
發表內容：

路過兄
謝謝老兄給小弟偷懶的機會﹐這樣子偶就不用去庫房被東西砸到了﹗

空特兄

擾人美夢﹐實在罪過﹗剛剛順默默兄的路去看了一下﹗
實在不忍擾人清夢﹐只是小弟晚上作夢夢到會笑醒﹗

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 　於　2000/10/28 08:48
發表內容：

Im from mainland. It is well known that the official figure from ML is
330 US fighters were downed by PVAAF, and another 300 or so were hit in air
combat. Is this reasonable?
As far as that 10,629 number goes, its possible that they counted even bullet
hit by infantry rifles. Therefore, one aircraft can be hit multiple times. This
number itself is indeed questionable and might not be very meaningful. But many
countries do similar things.

There is no need to put words into others mouth and then start badmouthing. ML
has already rectified many ridiculous exaggerations since very long ago, FYI.

BTW, many US sources still claim that PVA lost 900,000 lives in Korea war. If you
assume 1:3 KIA and wounded ratio, that number means more than three million loss.
Has any of you guys rebutted it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

路過的人 　於　2000/10/28 09:23
發表內容：

>It is well known that the official figure from ML is
330 US fighters were downed by PVAAF, and another 300 or so were hit in air combat. Is this reasonable?
就我的看法...以數字而言是算合理，問題是...
這些戰果是PLAAF的嗎？我懷疑！

不要忘了，蘇聯也有許多飛行員參加韓戰...
率領這批〝自願軍〞的將官曾於二戰時擊落過62架德機！

據俄國最近解密的資料...
有五十名蘇聯飛行員於韓國時擊落超過5架敵機，
這些人的總戰果為410架，
最高記錄為 Yevgeny Pepelyaev的23架，
其次為 N.V. Sutyagin的22架...
(美國戰績最高者為Joe McConnell的16架)

以當時中共空軍的水準...哪裡能跟俄國人比？
這批俄國人的許多跟許多美軍一樣，是二戰的老兵！
倒底有多少戰績真的是PLAAF的？懷疑！

>But many countries do similar things.

話是沒錯，不過請注意...
對外宣傳戰績是一回事，
真正對內的敘獎可是不能造假的！
僚機的證詞，照相槍等資料可是不能缺的！

更何況絕大部分空戰是發生在北韓...
老美飛機被擊落...也絕大部份掉在北韓吧？！
理論上戰績〝應該更正確吧〞？！
結果呢？？

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2000/10/28 09:30
發表內容：

Hi,白雲 ,Greeting!

As far as that 10,629 number goes, its possible that they counted even bullet hit by infantry rifles. Therefore, one aircraft can be hit multiple times.

Very reasonable explanation!

Thisnumber itself is indeed questionable and might not be very meaningful.

I think it is definitely meaningless!

But many countries do similar things.

However, it still doesnt worth to brag about such kind of triumph!

There is no need to put words into others mouth and then start badmouthing. ML
has already rectified many ridiculous exaggerations since very long ago, FYI.

I agree with your point. Just FYI,why some Taiwanese here talk about this issue?

Beacsue, some genius from ML post those nonsense in a Taiwanese poltics forum and brag their glorious history!
http://www.gati.org.tw/chat/index.php3?read+972616954

If they dont post that kind of crap, we wont say anything nasty against them!

BTW, many US sources still claim that PVA lost 900,000 lives in Korea war. If you
assume 1:3 KIA and wounded ratio, that number means more than three million loss.
Has any of you guys rebutted it?

At least, there is no American people posting such stuff in Taiwanese politics forum to brag about or try to show how superior they are!
Then, no body offend us, why bother?!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 　於　2000/10/28 10:01
發表內容：

>> Just FYI,why some Taiwanese here talk about this issue?
>> Beacsue, some genius from ML post those nonsense in a Taiwanese
>> poltics forum and brag their glorioushistory!
>> http://www.gati.org.tw/chat/index.php3?read+972616954
>> If they dont post that kind of crap, we wont say anything nasty
>> against them!
Who are we and who are them?

Ive been wandering from BBS to BBS for a long time. Dont post often, though.

For various reasons, knowledgable people from ML may have difficulty/problem
in posting on public forums. Ideology is one factor. Defending MLs specific standpoint
is not an easy thing to do. (When many people think of China, they automatically
equal everything to the CCP regime...) A bigger factor is MLs strict rule on
keeping its secret, especially in military wise. Every year tens of thousands of
college graduates go to ML defense companies, but most of them cannot speak about
their specialties on the internet... BTW, I noticed that there were lots of
comments on MLs super MLRS. The original source was a HK newspaper. For ML
weapons, you can only count on ML official sources.

I guess you might be an amateur military fan (Im not very sure^^). But, many other posters
or imposters on those BBSes must be professional. They deliberately spread
misinformation/disinformation to mislead people across the strait and creat
animosity, either trying to brainwash taiwanese that ML people are stupid, stubbon
and militant, or trying to brainwash ML people that Taiwanese are selfish,
ego, and crazy.

Lets be cautious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 　於　2000/10/28 10:14
發表內容：

>>不要忘了，蘇聯也有許多飛行員參加韓戰...
>>率領這批〝自願軍〞的將官曾於二戰時擊落過62架德機！
>>據俄國最近解密的資料...
>>有五十名蘇聯飛行員於韓國時擊落超過5架敵機，
>>這些人的總戰果為410架，
>>最高記錄為 Yevgeny Pepelyaev的23架，
>>其次為 N.V. Sutyagin的22架...
>>(美國戰績最高者為Joe McConnell的16架)

IMHO, Russians have the habit to brag. Especially these days, I dont trust
much those de-classified documents. Remember how many rumors were flying
around (all from Russia), when its Kursk SSN was in trouble? Now this
is something happened today, what can they do for things happened 50
years ago?

>>以當時中共空軍的水準...哪裡能跟俄國人比？
>>這批俄國人的許多跟許多美軍一樣，是二戰的老兵！
>>倒底有多少戰績真的是PLAAF的？懷疑！

In terms of flying jet fighters, Id say many pilots from
Russia and the US were also beginners. MLs official claimed losses
(downed) were about 350. There were several serious ML articles talking
about the air combat outcome. The key was to keep
focusing on American bombers. ML acknowledged certain advantages
that F86 enjoyed. But Mig15/bis could dominate F80/84, and other piston
fighters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

路過的人 　於　2000/10/28 11:46
發表內容：

>In terms of flying jet fighters,
Id say many pilots from Russia and the US were also beginners
For handling the Jet...Maybe.

But for the ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering)...
Definite Not!!

And for the Experience at that time,
the PLAAF is just Suck!! Nothing!!

The pilots of PLAAF...Just GREEN!!

>ML acknowledged certain advantages
that F86 enjoyed.
But Mig15/bis could dominate F80/84,
and other piston

In General...Thats true!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 　於　2000/10/28 11:54
發表內容：

>> Just FYI,why some Taiwanese here talk about this issue?
>> Beacsue, some genius from ML post those nonsense in a Taiwanese
>> poltics forum and brag their glorioushistory!
>> http://www.gati.org.tw/chat/index.php3?read+972616954
>> If they dont post that kind of crap, we wont say anything nasty
>> against them!
Who are we and who are them?

OK!Let me rephrase.

If those ML people did not post that kind of propaganda crap in Taiwanese politics forum, Taiwanese here would not have said nasty against those ML people!

I guess you might be an amateur military fan (Im not very sure^^).

Yes! I am an amateur!

But, many other posters
or imposters on those BBSes must be professional. They deliberately spread
misinformation/disinformation to mislead people across the strait and creat
animosity, either trying to brainwash taiwanese that ML people are stupid, stubbon
and militant, or trying to brainwash ML people that Taiwanese are selfish,
ego, and crazy.

Lets be cautious.

Thanks for the info!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

白雲 　於　2000/10/28 12:22
發表內容：

To 路過的人
As usual, I never expect to change other peoples mind (or stereotype,
I have that too) on internet. I just happened to be here, and Id like
to share some of my info/view with you guys.

>> If those ML people did not post that kind of propaganda crap in
>> Taiwanese politics forum, Taiwanese here would not have said nasty against those ML people!

At one post, you said youre of science major, and like to do things
accurately. I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, and have the
same habit. What I want to say here is that, the above statement is
not very accurate. Its not always the case that ML people
provoked/initiated silly arguments. In addition, things can go much
better if either side can restrain.

To 白雲：
Thank for reply!! ^^

就韓戰的資料而言...
基本上，臺灣的網友不會去主動關切這些...

會貼這些資料，還是受到某些對岸的自大狂的〝刺激〞...
慶祝〝擊敗美軍〞...Fine!!
我沒意見...Thats your freedom!

但是要吹噓戰績及誇張豐功偉業...
那很對不起，我若有能力能夠拆穿，
一定當頭賞這種渾人一盆冷水！

要講戰史，是不能胡扯的！
雖然雙方資料不一定一致，
但那種一眼就看得出來的胡扯，還如此囂張...那也太離譜啦！

說得難聽些...如此胡吹下去，
可還有臉指責日本人竄改歷史？！

韓戰已是歷史...談論韓戰等於是在談戰史...
這可不是嘴巴說說〝豐功偉業〞就算的！

我與小滬尾兄也只是個人有興趣於軍武，不是職業玩家！

小滬尾兄長於武器系統，小弟自認對戰史
(尤以一戰二戰﹞略有研究...

有空多來坐坐！

PS. My major is Human Genetics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

白雲 　於　2000/10/28 13:17
發表內容：

>> 但是要吹噓戰績及誇張豐功偉業...
>> 那很對不起，我若有能力能夠拆穿，
>> 一定當頭賞這種渾人一盆冷水！
Maybe its growing pain. Indeed, today some ML young people are not quite
responsible for his/her mouth and like to brag. Same can be said on
some Taiwanese. But, you know, ML has much bigger population.^^

>> 要講戰史，是不能胡扯的！
>> 雖然雙方資料不一定一致，
>> 但那種一眼就看得出來的胡扯，還如此囂張...那也太離譜啦！

Some early ML publications or numbers, especially those from culture revolution era,
were not accurate. But things have been changing. Recent Korean War reports from
ML are more trustworthy. (I dont quite trust western reports either, you know,
everybody brags)

>> 小滬尾兄長於武器系統，小弟自認對戰史
>> (尤以一戰二戰﹞略有研究...

I like aircraft. Childhood dream. 但，造化弄人。

Nice weekend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

強盜 　於　2000/10/28 15:17
發表內容：

我看原文一萬多是指擊傷架次,而一架飛機有可能被擊傷十多
架次.每次被擊傷只要不是致命傷就可以飛回去修補好繼續飛
行.
同時我記的原來看過聯合國軍韓戰損失飛機1400多架.
這個是指完全被擊落\擊毀的.
就算按擊毀與擊傷1:3來看,聯合國軍可能有5000多架次飛機
受過傷.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
強盜 　於　2000/10/28 16:31
發表內容：

但中國空軍的戰果並未吹牛.
我手上的資料有中國空軍的歷次空戰經過,立功人數.
上面的戰果統計是擊落聯合國軍飛機330架.
被擊落231架.
之所以中國空軍戰果大於聯合國軍.
主要在於指揮優勢:
(1)中國空軍是在地面雷達的指揮下近程防禦作戰.而美
空軍是遠程進攻作戰.
武器優勢:
(2)中國空軍早期基本全是米格-15,比美軍早期F-80,F-84
,P-51先進.
後美軍採用F-86後中國空軍又基本採用米格-15比斯.
米格-15比斯與F-86基本相當.而美軍一直使用相當數量的
F-80,F-84.
早期參加空戰的是東北航校的人員,東北航校46年就成立,
日本報道過原東北軍部分飛行員和技術人員提供過幫助.
數據水份大的是高砲部隊.
彭德懷在五次戰役後說過:....如果有甲乙兩個高炮
陣地同時擊傷一架飛機,但上報戰果時甲報擊傷一架,乙也報
擊傷一架,結果成了兩架.(彭德懷的這段話憑記憶而寫,大致
是這個意思.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
強盜 　於　2000/10/28 18:41
發表內容：

日本東北軍應爲關東軍.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HENRYHSU 　於　2000/10/29 08:25
發表內容：

>> 諸位再看看坦克車的擊毀率:
>> 擊毀美軍坦克 1849輛,自己只損失9輛 戰勝率為
>> 1849:9 =205.4:1
The number of tanks PVA possessed was negligible
throughout the entire Korea War.

It was until the late half of the war that PVA started
to have meaningful artillery support, still not even
close when compared to the US.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
強盜 　於　2000/10/29 11:24
發表內容：

>> 諸位再看看坦克車的擊毀率:
>> 擊毀美軍坦克 1849輛,自己只損失9輛 戰勝率為
>> 1849:9 =205.4:1
談到這個不由得談談韓戰的反坦克戰.
韓戰中出現過大量的步兵反坦克戰例.
如果在寬廣的平原上,坦克排成寬廣正面縱深隊形沖擊,憑當時
的步兵反坦克武器(火箭筒\反坦克手雷\反坦克槍等),步兵對這
種坦克洪流,基本是無能爲力的.
但在韓國多山的地形中,坦克多數情況下隻能沿著山閒的道路
展開長一字隊形前進.而步兵隻需利用地形埋伏好、有好的反
坦克武器就對坦克產生大的威脅。
在這種地形的限制下,步兵反坦克作戰大行其道.
在50年7月美軍保衛大田的作戰中,美24步兵師指揮官威廉．迪安
少將扛著超級巴祖卡(88.86毫米火箭筒)親自上陣擊毀一輛朝
鮮軍的T34/85坦克,這天美軍的火箭筒反坦克小組共擊毀10輛朝
鮮軍的T34/85坦克.
在8月2日美軍89坦克營一個M4A3E8坦克連在馬山附近遭到朝鮮軍
45毫米反坦克炮的伏擊，被擊毀8輛坦克。
同樣在51年1月3日志願軍在圍攻英軍29旅的戰鬭中，志願軍入夜
後撲向突圍的英軍，利用反坦克手雷一舉擊毀和繳獲坦克31輛。
志願軍的武器基本是向蘇聯進口，自產武器不多，但其中有名的
大量生產的一種就是仿製美超級巴祖卡的90毫米反坦克火箭筒
。
志願軍擊毀坦克並不是靠坦克，大多數情況下是靠反坦克武器。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

東方 　於　2001/05/30 00:07
Re : 小滬尾!HELP!! (韓戰資料辨偽)