Talk:F-86 Sabre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments

Contents

[edit] Kills in Korea

Front view of a F-86A Sabre. Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).
Front view of a F-86A Sabre.
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

If we know the numbers for the Korea-Kills are wrong (as stated in the text) why should the "14:1" ratio still be mentioned?

reply: It was a figure of long-standing, I attempted to create a NPOV language revision. The section needs a lot of work to represent the situation as it now stands, disputed in some circles that for some reason accept Stalinist Soviet records as gospel on the issue.131.238.92.62 12:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the UK not also use this aircraft - see List of aircraft of the RAF 160.5.247.213 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It did and I corrected the deficiency. Buckboard 09:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

37 nations used the F-86, and four manufactured it. Almost 10,000 copies were built--the most of any modern western fighter. The actual numbers of F-86E's and F-86F's--and who built them-- are confusing but I am researching for something verifiable. Right now I accepted the 456 figure for the E and revised the F to 2239, which is Knaack's and Wagner's figure. Also I deleted the 14:1--but the article is very frustratingly written and will require some thought to re-write accurately while still maintaining NPOV. Buckboard 11:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not perfect, but better. The article is about the F-86, not which side's claims are more reliable, and I limited that discussion here.Buckboard 10:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't go in the article as it's speculative, original research, but if you want to know what the actual kill ratio might have been, it seems like each side's "own aircraft lost" number should be relatively accurate, while "enemy aircraft killed" would be very unreliable -- so 345 MiGs shot down, to 224 F-86s lost to all causes, which sounds like about a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. Kaleja 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

re: my discussion of the numbers of E's and F's--by counting USAF serial numbers, the count toals 456 for the E (including the 60 Canadian-built), and 2,539 F's. None of the other figures fail to jibe in multiple sources. Buckboard 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm... The F-86 Sabre in the picture at the top looks like one which an astronaut used during his days in the Korean War. I forgot which astronaut... 209.221.73.5 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operators

In the list of operators Belgium is mentioned. However, Belgium never used the F-86. Apparently, there was a plan to aquire some under the Mutual Aid and Development program, but it never materialised. So I removed the reference.

[edit] Citations needed

I think citations are needed for e.g. the section on Taiwanese service, and probably other sections as well.

So the answer was to put so many "citation needed" that the article's readability was effected? Tirronan 01:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last retired by Bolivia or Portugal?

This F-86 page states it was retired in 1980 by Portugal, yet the Wikipedia "1993_in_aviation" states the last F-86 was withdrawn from Bolivia's Air Force this year. Which one is correct?

[edit] Most beautiful F-86 lost

In case ya'll didn't hear, the most beautifully restored F-86 (a Sabre 5, actually) N86FS, crashed in Hickory NC this past Monday. Killed was pilot/owner Wyatt Fuller, of Harley Davidson fame. I had the distinct privilege of getting to watch the whole restoration process, and photograph it as well. Photos in memory of Wyatt can be seen on my blog, link is on my user page. Akradecki 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Hunters (Movie)

The link apparently points to the wrong Movie?


[edit] F-86 in the Indo-Pak War of 1965

To Idleguy:

  • Air-to-Air - Ok so lets handle the air-to-air claims and counter claims. I don't agree with the figure of 13 combat + 1 civilian plane given by you. As you can see here [1] (this is the reference I have cited), there isn't any 'civilian plane' listed in the aircrafts lost in air-to-air battles category. So where did you get the figure of 13 combat + 1 civilian aircraft??? As far as I see it 14 combat aircrafts are accepted as being lost to Pakistan Air Force F-86s comprising of 8 Hunters, 3 Vampires, 2 Gnats and 1 Mystere (8+3+2+1=14).
  • Air-to-ground attacks - This is a little cloudier than the air-to-air battles category. As you can see at [2] (a source which I have cited with the numbers given), the PAF F-86s of the 14th Squadron struck Indian Air Force base twice at Kalaikunda claiming 10 Canberras destroyed and five damaged along with two Hunters damaged in the first raid and 4 to 6 Canberras destroyed in the second raid. Please note that I have not added the claimed damaged aircraft to the list of claimed destroyed aircrafts and moreover I have used the figure of 4 Canberras instead of 6 as claimed hits in the second attack. Moreover the Tailchoppers of the 14th Squadron attacked Baghdogra, Barrackpore and Agartala in which they claimed 5 transport aircraft, 2 fighters, 1 Canberra and a helicopter. This brings the total to 10+4+5+2+1+1(helicopter)=23 aircrafts.

In addition to this the Pakistani F-86s also attacked bases at Pathankot, Halwara, Adampur and Jamnagar. Pakistan Air Force No. 19 Squadron undertook the strike at Pathankot [3] and claims 7 MiG-21s, 5 Mysteres and one Fairchild C-119 i.e. (7+5+1=13). The strike at Halwara by the F-86s didn't result in any aircraft being destroyed on the ground...(the b-57s did that later) and I don't have claim of destroyed aircrafts of the strikes at Adampur and Jamnagar from PAF side. Jamnagar was first hit by F-86s and then by B-57s so it is hard to attribute the losses at that airbase to either the F-86 or the B-57[4]. Anyways all in all it comes out to be 23+13=36 verified claims.

From the Indian side [5] the accepted losses to these attacks (and thus which we can attribute to the F-86) are 22 aircrafts (Not counting the B-57 raids, the raid on Jamnagar and the raid on Srinagar as I can't seem to find any source which tells whether the Srinagar raid was undertaken by F-86s or B-57s).

Moreover IAF was around 3 times the size of the PAF at the time of the 1965 conflict...hence the words 'much larger' were used. See the Indian Air Force page on wikipedia for reference.

The IAF page itself isn't fully cited and as for the numbers, I highly doubt if the ratio of the IAF to PAF was 3:1, a number I couldn't immediately obtain from the IAF article. By 1965 PAF had grown manyfold, aided partly by Pakistan's economy of the early 60s which was in sharp contrast in India. Many sources have written that PAF had qualitative superiority for some period during the mid 1960s and was one of the reasons for Pakistan military planners to initiate op gibraltar. The IAF actually operated outdated planes when compared to Pakistan with the small numbers of Mig-21 being an exception rather than the rule. Right now I don't have time to go through the air to ground losses fully. Idleguy 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm I really don't think IAF was operating much outdated planes compared to the F-86 at the time. Lets see now...IAF had Hawker Hunters, Folland Gnats, Dassault Mysteres and Mig-21s.

The Hawker Hunter started production in 1953, The Folland Gnat around 1955, the Dassault Mystere started production in 1954 and the production Mig-21 entered service in 1959. The F-86 on, the other hand, started being produced around 1948 to 1949. Thus the F-86 was the one which was 'outdated' (or atleast older) when compared with the IAF's planes!!!....not the other way round. Red aRRow 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as looking up their original production dates. It is important to see what version of the plane PAF had, and I believe it was one of the latter editions that had improved characteristics. Moreover, I was referring to PAF as a whole and not just sabre. PAF was the first in asia to get a supersonic fighter (starfighter) and the planes on sabres were also fitted with better ammo and guns vis a vis the IAF. There were other qualitative differences and overall there was an advantage for Pak over Indian military that led a war game played in march 1965 in a US Defence institute to believe that in case of a war, Pak would win. The book titled crisis game by Stanley Griffin is a good read on this. Idleguy 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


The article is about the F-86 Sabre so I think comparing the age relatively to other fighters in PAF arsenal is redundant, as far as this article is concerned. Moreover the F-86 was an older design than any of the aeroplanes it had to face. I really don't think you can call its adversaries 'dated' when comparing to it...infact planes like the Mig-21 were state of the art in 1965.Red aRRow 13:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, much of the equipment operated by the IAF was arguably superior to the F86 - the Hawker Hunter, for example, could comfortably outfight the Sabre at altitude and had a much heavier armament. The success of the PAF F86's had much to do with the skill of the Pilots, drawing the IAF pilots down to low altitude where the F86 had the edge, and the fact that the Indian Hunters were operating in the ground attack role at the edge of their range... 84.92.80.169 11:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the original issue is sidetracked. The word that I took objection to was "much larger" trying to suggest that United Pakistan was somehow like Israel pitted against an Indian Military akin to the combined forces of the Arab states in the many wars. A report in the International Institute for Strategic Studies of the war shows that PAF had close to 20 squadrons as against 30 Indian squadrons and this was in 71 when India had an improved quantitative advantage. Further digging shows that the number of aircrafts in PAF squadrons were atleast 25 - 50% greater than aircrafts in a typical IAF squadron for that time. Effectively it means that though outnumbered, it wast a "much larger" or humungous airforce that PAF was dealing with.
  • P.S. The IISS article and other combat databases are available online to members and the approximate PAF and IAF squadron strength numbers were gained from multiple sources. Idleguy 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant Information

As the article is about the F-86 Sabre airplane, issues related to air superiority and defeat/surrender are best mentioned in other articles which might be more appropriate as a whole to either the 1971 war or articles related to the Air Force as a whole. These bigger issues are of no relevance in an article about an aeroplane. Only the issue of air superiority could be mentioned if PAF was operating only the F-86 in the East Pakistan...which it wasn't. Thus I think both the issues of air superiority and surrender in East Pakistan are best mentioned elsewhere. Red aRRow 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is partially to answer Red arrow and BillCJ. BillCJ, The visual source for the Pakistani fratricide of planes is given in the photograph itself which says that 11 planes were captured and source the rest of the squadron was shot down by AA or dogfights, source is also given (citations "[13][14][15]") read them. as for the air supremacy see [6] which states that India attained air supremacy. This was largely in part due to the crippling of the Sabres. They were supposed to hold out being the mainstay of the PAF. Once this was done, the air superiority was fully complete. I hope i have clarified why air superirority needs to be added. Idleguy 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My issue is that you need to have a reference with that sentence you keep adding, one that refers to the sources you are using for that sentence. The reader should not have to figure out which source that goes with, otherwise it appearsto be unsourced. If the meaning of the sentence is not directly stated in your source, but merely inferred, than it is original reseach, and can't be placed here. Sorry for the multiple revert; I was in a hurry, and it was quicker than posting here. -- BillCJ 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa Flag

This might be totally minor, but the South African flag shown in the "List of Countries" section is the old (pre 1994) Flag. Is it necessary to change this to the new one, or should it remain because of the fact that that was the flag back in those days?

If it should be fixed, please can someone else do it because I am new to editing articles an haven't a clue how. Thanks Goldfritter 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I believe that the more common U.S. spelling of the word is "saber" - is there any particular reason why the British/French version was adopted for this plane? Loganberry (Talk) 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{fact}}

I don't know who and I don't know where I have to complain to get the [citation needed] swarm edit eliminated. All I really know is that this article is barely legible due to the sheer # of [citation needed] inserted. I am sure this was done with getting the article better and it did need some work but this is bordering on vandalism. Sections should be noted and left at least readable. One irritated editor Tirronan 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion last month at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress#Do we need 60 [citation needed] tags?]]. The discussion is fairly detailed, and links to various sections on Wikipedia policy and guidelines for references and citations. After reading this section and following up the linked sections also, if you have any more questions or concerns on the topic, feel free to ask. - BillCJ 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what irritates me worse, the fact that someone comes in and edits like that and leaves it that way after five minutes of pasting or the fact it has remained that way for the public to see for 40 days... I'll read what is said but I am unlikely to change my opinion. This just seems like a reward to someone with an anal retentive quality to ruin good work and walk away satisfied after doing nothing... Tirronan 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the system that Wikipedia uses. All the articles are works in progress. One solution is to find the sources and put them in, as you are doing here. The other is to discuss the problem of {{tl|citation needed)) tags on the appropriate talk pges, and try to devise a new system that doesn't deface the reader's text as much, yet still calls attention to the need for a verifiable source for that item.
Remember, Verifiability is a Policy on Wikipedia, not merely a guideline. Far too many editors, especially newbies, ignore or are not aware of the policy when they add material. The alternative is to simply remove the questionable text as unsourced. In some articles, this would leave almost no text whatsover. So, as a compromomise, when an editor sees text that is unsourced, especially if he/she is doing an article assesment, they leave the {{fact}} tags. Its part of the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. It doesn't mena the editor has a god-complex or anything, but that sources are needed, but he may not have access to the sources. Yes, it's sad if they tags remain for a long time, but as I said, the alternative is simply to cut out text. I often do that on the same day I see questionable text added, esp. by an IP editor, but I often get grief from other editors for mistreating the newbies, and not giving enough time for someone to find a source.
One idea I have thought of is that Wikipedia could have two modes for viewing the text: one without editorial tags, and one with tags, with a button at the top of the page to toggle the modes. THis would have to go into the software that WIki uses, and is far beyond my capability. I don't know where to suggest it either, but if you find a talk page where it seems appropriate to suggest it, feel free to do so, or let me know on my talk page, and I'll post there.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to find sources for this article. I am a very slow typist, especially if copying from a book. As a result, even though I do have some printed sources that might contain info on some of the aircraft ariticles (not the F-86 or B-52, btw), I rarely ever sit down an add sources, although I have. I do try to do that when I add material to an existing article, or start a new one. I also don't like adding specs for the same reason. Most of what I do is copy editing, which does include adding those ugly tags. That's what I am best at, and I find it more enjoyable and profitable to spend my time on Wiki that way. I also like to engage in discussions, hence I am here. :) - BillCJ 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not a problem one with verification on articles. I've been hammering away at them and at the T-34 article getting it in some sort of shape. Most of my irritation comes from a few folks that are doing this and thumping chests and not contributing to the answers of said problem. I guess that is most of it mangled articles by us for very little work leaving a mess to be cleaned up by others. Just seems really sloppy to me. I'll work on the talk pages of verify to get some results we can all live with. It is just from a customer service propective this is poor at best. Tirronan 23:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand what you mean by the customer service perspective, but Wikipedia also considers every reader an editor. I do agree we need a better system for flagging text; even changing {{citation needed}} to something much shorter, like {cn} or a small editorial symbol, would be an improvement, something no bigger than a reference/citation number, which we already use.
As a suggestion, you might take a look at the F-105 Thunderchief article, and its edit history. It's a good example of how the assesment system is supposed to work, and now the article is rated GA (Good Article). Also, two WikiProjects, WP:AIR, and WP:Milhist, exist to try to improve aviation/military-related articles, and to set standards and guidelines within their peojects. I beleive Milhist has a project article every 2 weeks, which all project memeber try to work on together. To my knowledge, WP:AIR (the project I work with most of the time) does not do this as yet. Feel free to suggest doing this to the project. You may also find editors who want to deal with the {{fact}} tags in a timely matter, and it would be easier to do this as a small group than by yourself. - BillCJ 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it has its good side as well, the Battle of Waterloo article just took a major rachet upward and hopefully we can get it beyond a class b article. I am really a Napoleonic/war of 1812 guy I just couldn't bare what I saw on F-86 or T-34 and got involved. Tirronan 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To whom it may concern

I've added enough footnotes to get the article readable again and I think that I have improved the article somewhat as well. However at this point I can find no sources on the ROC/PROC Taiwan straight battle to remove the [citation needed]. Nor do I have information on the Indo/Pak war so I will not step there either. At this point gentlemen I am going to bid you a fond fairwell and hope that someone cares enough about the article to finish the citation needed. Its a great article and I am betting it will get recognised as such. Tirronan 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications Model

I changed the variant name on the specifications because those are in fact the specs for the F-86F not the F-86H (which was a nuclear armed version). Just thought y'all might want to know why.

- Jnunn2

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/-/8/Talk%7EF-86_Sabre_8b27.html"