超级军网请教，建国以后一直到改革开放前，台湾海峡的制空制海权 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 20:38:02
50年代朝鲜战争爆发以后，海峡两岸就处于隔绝状态，那时候大陆东南沿海的海上交通就完全中断了，就连渔民出海捕鱼都受到很大影响。比如原来上海和厦门，广州都是有海上航线的，后来就长时间停航了。
74年西沙海战，现在的说法是东海舰队的军舰是强行穿越台湾海峡的，台湾方面没有阻拦。如果这个说法正确的话，我就不太明白，台湾控制的外岛包括金门，马祖，乌丘屿都是靠近大陆沿海的，与台湾本岛的距离都比较远，怎么解放军会这么怵头通过台湾海峡呢？现在还有说法是因为台湾海峡无法通过，解放军的军舰都要从台湾到东边的太平洋上面绕行，这是真的吗？
还有就是58年炮击金门以后，解放军虽然获得了一定的制空权，但是那时候台湾飞机还是经常飞到大陆上空的，被击落的并不多，这解放军的国土防空搞的算成功吗？50年代朝鲜战争爆发以后，海峡两岸就处于隔绝状态，那时候大陆东南沿海的海上交通就完全中断了，就连渔民出海捕鱼都受到很大影响。比如原来上海和厦门，广州都是有海上航线的，后来就长时间停航了。
74年西沙海战，现在的说法是东海舰队的军舰是强行穿越台湾海峡的，台湾方面没有阻拦。如果这个说法正确的话，我就不太明白，台湾控制的外岛包括金门，马祖，乌丘屿都是靠近大陆沿海的，与台湾本岛的距离都比较远，怎么解放军会这么怵头通过台湾海峡呢？现在还有说法是因为台湾海峡无法通过，解放军的军舰都要从台湾到东边的太平洋上面绕行，这是真的吗？
还有就是58年炮击金门以后，解放军虽然获得了一定的制空权，但是那时候台湾飞机还是经常飞到大陆上空的，被击落的并不多，这解放军的国土防空搞的算成功吗？
74年西沙海战，现在的说法是东海舰队的军舰是强行穿越台湾海峡的，台湾方面没有阻拦。如果这个说法正确的话，我就不太明白，台湾控制的外岛包括金门，马祖，乌丘屿都是靠近大陆沿海的，与台湾本岛的距离都比较远，怎么解放军会这么怵头通过台湾海峡呢？现在还有说法是因为台湾海峡无法通过，解放军的军舰都要从台湾到东边的太平洋上面绕行，这是真的吗？
还有就是58年炮击金门以后，解放军虽然获得了一定的制空权，但是那时候台湾飞机还是经常飞到大陆上空的，被击落的并不多，这解放军的国土防空搞的算成功吗？50年代朝鲜战争爆发以后，海峡两岸就处于隔绝状态，那时候大陆东南沿海的海上交通就完全中断了，就连渔民出海捕鱼都受到很大影响。比如原来上海和厦门，广州都是有海上航线的，后来就长时间停航了。
74年西沙海战，现在的说法是东海舰队的军舰是强行穿越台湾海峡的，台湾方面没有阻拦。如果这个说法正确的话，我就不太明白，台湾控制的外岛包括金门，马祖，乌丘屿都是靠近大陆沿海的，与台湾本岛的距离都比较远，怎么解放军会这么怵头通过台湾海峡呢？现在还有说法是因为台湾海峡无法通过，解放军的军舰都要从台湾到东边的太平洋上面绕行，这是真的吗？
还有就是58年炮击金门以后，解放军虽然获得了一定的制空权，但是那时候台湾飞机还是经常飞到大陆上空的，被击落的并不多，这解放军的国土防空搞的算成功吗？
{:3_83:} 一直掌握在中国人手里~~~
58年金门战役期间两岸空战，战场基本在福建、浙江上空，中共空军被击落31架，国军空军被击落3架。
你说制空权在谁手里？
你说制空权在谁手里？
那个海峡中线是什么意思来的？我不懂瞎说的呵！
又见31。;P
6# 碧海云帆
息怒，国军自然是杀人杀到手软，不忍再杀，主动退却到中线的:D
息怒，国军自然是杀人杀到手软，不忍再杀，主动退却到中线的:D
替你补张图，当年大能的国府空军打出了比老美高的多的导弹命中率。{:3_82:}
算了，就不和这东西一般见识了，真真的是林子大了，什么样的鸟都有啊
10# 碧海云帆
您说错了，现在已经是鸟多了什么样的林子都有的地步了
您说错了，现在已经是鸟多了什么样的林子都有的地步了
碧海云帆 发表于 2009-9-29 09:45 
你丫以为自己是个什么狗屄东西
你丫以为自己是个什么狗屄东西
国军英勇转进，在下望尘莫及。
国军光复大陆日，家祭“无望”告乃翁{:3_83:}
国军光复大陆日，家祭“无望”告乃翁{:3_83:}
台湾海峡的制空制海权在相当长的时间里掌握在美国人手上
至少是和只会吠嚎的某动物没有交集的东西，就此打住，拜拜了你呐
楼上对31的认识还是比较理性地{:2_60:}
管理员呢，版主呢！！！？？？{:2_71:}
看下来自第三方的资料
The Republic of China Air Force of Taiwan was one of the first recipients of surplus USAF Sabres. From December 1954 to June 1956, the ROC Air Force received 160 ex-USAF F-86F-1-NA through F-86F-30-NA fighters. By June 1958, the Nationalist Chinese had built up an impressive fighter force, with 320 F-86Fs and seven RF-86Fs having been delivered.
Sabres and MiGs were shortly to battle each other in the skies of Asia once again in the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. In August 1958, the Chinese Communists of the People's Republic of China attempted to force the Nationalists off of the islands of Quemoy and Matsu by shelling and blockade. Nationalist F-86Fs flying CAP over the islands found themselves confronted by Communist MiG-15s and MiG-17s, and there were numerous dogfights.
During these battles, the Nationalist Sabres introduced a new element into aerial warfare. Under a secret effort designated Operation Black Magic, the US Navy had provided the ROC with the AIM-9 Sidewinder, its first infrared-homing air-to-air missile, which was just entering service with the United States. A small team from VMF-323, a Marine FJ-4 Fury squadron with later assistance from China Lake and North American Aviation, initially modified 20 of the F-86 Sabres to carry a pair of Sidewinders on underwing launch rails and instructed the ROC pilots in their use flying profiles with USAF F-100s simulating the MiG-17. The MiGs enjoyed an altitude advantage over the Sabres, as they had in Korea, and Communist Chinese MiGs routinely cruised over the Nationalist Sabres, only engaging when they had a favorable position. The Sidewinder took away that advantage and proved to be devastatingly effective against the MiGs.
The combat introduction of the Sidewinder took place in a battle on 24 September 1958 when ROC Sabres succeeded in destroying 10 MiGs and scoring two probables without loss to themselves.[citation needed] In one month of air battles over Quemoy and Matsu, Nationalist pilots tallied a score of no less than 29 MiGs destroyed and eight probables, against a loss of two F-84Gs and no Sabres.
看下来自第三方的资料
The Republic of China Air Force of Taiwan was one of the first recipients of surplus USAF Sabres. From December 1954 to June 1956, the ROC Air Force received 160 ex-USAF F-86F-1-NA through F-86F-30-NA fighters. By June 1958, the Nationalist Chinese had built up an impressive fighter force, with 320 F-86Fs and seven RF-86Fs having been delivered.
Sabres and MiGs were shortly to battle each other in the skies of Asia once again in the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. In August 1958, the Chinese Communists of the People's Republic of China attempted to force the Nationalists off of the islands of Quemoy and Matsu by shelling and blockade. Nationalist F-86Fs flying CAP over the islands found themselves confronted by Communist MiG-15s and MiG-17s, and there were numerous dogfights.
During these battles, the Nationalist Sabres introduced a new element into aerial warfare. Under a secret effort designated Operation Black Magic, the US Navy had provided the ROC with the AIM-9 Sidewinder, its first infrared-homing air-to-air missile, which was just entering service with the United States. A small team from VMF-323, a Marine FJ-4 Fury squadron with later assistance from China Lake and North American Aviation, initially modified 20 of the F-86 Sabres to carry a pair of Sidewinders on underwing launch rails and instructed the ROC pilots in their use flying profiles with USAF F-100s simulating the MiG-17. The MiGs enjoyed an altitude advantage over the Sabres, as they had in Korea, and Communist Chinese MiGs routinely cruised over the Nationalist Sabres, only engaging when they had a favorable position. The Sidewinder took away that advantage and proved to be devastatingly effective against the MiGs.
The combat introduction of the Sidewinder took place in a battle on 24 September 1958 when ROC Sabres succeeded in destroying 10 MiGs and scoring two probables without loss to themselves.[citation needed] In one month of air battles over Quemoy and Matsu, Nationalist pilots tallied a score of no less than 29 MiGs destroyed and eight probables, against a loss of two F-84Gs and no Sabres.
在国军空军伟大的18：0目前，似乎TG空军应该早就不存在了吧？
祥瑞御免，诸神退散
祥瑞御免，诸神退散
海峡制空权的变化实际上是双方装备、战术、士气的互动过程。
PS：双方实打实的战例很多，可偏偏有人用这个“31”。{:3_90:}
PS：双方实打实的战例很多，可偏偏有人用这个“31”。{:3_90:}
马力强劲 发表于 2009-9-29 09:50
证据。
证据。
pla2003 发表于 2009-9-29 09:12
同意。。。
同意。。。
这个第三方是“wiki”吧:L
一直掌握在美军手中
马力强劲 发表于 2009-9-29 09:28
你台湾杂志看多了吧
你台湾杂志看多了吧
Eventually, the CNAF pilots thus claimed nine confirmed and two probable MiGs as shot down, and one as damaged. Certainly, the appearance of the AIM-9B Sidewinder in combat was a great surprise for the Chinese pilots. They could not have expected the Sabres to open fire at them from ranges over 3.000 yards previously, so the first three or four Sidewinders fired almost certainly had little problems in downing their targets: after all, AIM-9B was functioning at best at levels above 30.000ft, against non-manoeuvring targets. Whether it is possible that this initial clash caused such a shock on the Chinese side and caused them to disperse all of their remaining formations thus enabling the CNAF pilots to pick out single MiGs and end shooting at them even over their own airfields, remains unknown and thus unconfirmed, however. Certain is only that CNAF sources do not claim the involvement of any transport aircraft in this air battle, the Chinese credit a killed pilot with two kills again, while the CNAF claims quite a few MiGs as destroyed.
Nevertheless, some Russian sources claim that after this day the Nationalists supposedly stopped flying supply missions to Quemoy. That this is not truth was shown during most recent Chinese publications, which indicate that on 3 October the PLAAF MiG-17-pilots Cao Shuang-Ming and Yu Yao-Zhong have shot down two CNAF C-46s. CNAF records confirm that two C-46s were damaged by MiGs on this day, but state that both landed safely. While their eventual fates are unknown ?i.e. it remains unclear if they were subsequently repaired or not ?this obviously means that the version about the downing of two Nationalist transports on 24 September was wrong, as well as that the CNAF did not stopping supply missions on that day. In fact, this claim might indicate that the said trap set up by 48 MiGs that distracted the Sabres from escorting transports, which in turn were then attacked by MiGs, might have actually happened on 3 October instead. Surely, even a loss of two transports would not have been a reason enough for the Nationalists to stop transporting supplies per aircraft to Quemoy: the situation there was all too serious not to risk losing even more aircraft.
The air battle on 24 September actually signalized the end of the contest in the air, then ?with their fighters having an advantage in high-altitude performance, but acting as perfect targets for CNAF Sidewinder-armed Sabres when flying that high and in a straight line, and also being at a considerable disadvantage when attempting to manoeuvre against the Sabre at a lower level ?the Chinese pilots subsequently became much more careful when engaging in air combats. They could not know if all or only some of Nationalist F-86s were armed with AIM-9Bs and consequently had to expect a sudden attack from any of them. Furthermore the PLAAF could not know the performance of the AIM-9B at lower levels: it only knew that the missile functioned perfectly at high altitudes, where no aircraft could not manoeuvre very hard because of the rare air.
Besides, at a lower altitude the inexperienced PLAAF and PLANAF pilots were no match for intensively trained CNAF F-86-pilots, even most junior of which had at least 1.000 hours on the type. In fact, even the pilots of the VMF-323 had to admit in embarrassment that their FJ4 Furies ?although faster and able to fly higher ?could not turn with Nationalist Sabres, especially not bellow the levels of 25.000ft.
Nevertheless, some Russian sources claim that after this day the Nationalists supposedly stopped flying supply missions to Quemoy. That this is not truth was shown during most recent Chinese publications, which indicate that on 3 October the PLAAF MiG-17-pilots Cao Shuang-Ming and Yu Yao-Zhong have shot down two CNAF C-46s. CNAF records confirm that two C-46s were damaged by MiGs on this day, but state that both landed safely. While their eventual fates are unknown ?i.e. it remains unclear if they were subsequently repaired or not ?this obviously means that the version about the downing of two Nationalist transports on 24 September was wrong, as well as that the CNAF did not stopping supply missions on that day. In fact, this claim might indicate that the said trap set up by 48 MiGs that distracted the Sabres from escorting transports, which in turn were then attacked by MiGs, might have actually happened on 3 October instead. Surely, even a loss of two transports would not have been a reason enough for the Nationalists to stop transporting supplies per aircraft to Quemoy: the situation there was all too serious not to risk losing even more aircraft.
The air battle on 24 September actually signalized the end of the contest in the air, then ?with their fighters having an advantage in high-altitude performance, but acting as perfect targets for CNAF Sidewinder-armed Sabres when flying that high and in a straight line, and also being at a considerable disadvantage when attempting to manoeuvre against the Sabre at a lower level ?the Chinese pilots subsequently became much more careful when engaging in air combats. They could not know if all or only some of Nationalist F-86s were armed with AIM-9Bs and consequently had to expect a sudden attack from any of them. Furthermore the PLAAF could not know the performance of the AIM-9B at lower levels: it only knew that the missile functioned perfectly at high altitudes, where no aircraft could not manoeuvre very hard because of the rare air.
Besides, at a lower altitude the inexperienced PLAAF and PLANAF pilots were no match for intensively trained CNAF F-86-pilots, even most junior of which had at least 1.000 hours on the type. In fact, even the pilots of the VMF-323 had to admit in embarrassment that their FJ4 Furies ?although faster and able to fly higher ?could not turn with Nationalist Sabres, especially not bellow the levels of 25.000ft.
claimed ten MiGs shot down within couple of minutes.
The rest of this story, however, explains some additional details about the fate of Lt. Zhang. As several MiGs managed to gain height and engaged the Sabres in a dogfight, he was covering his leader when spotting a MiG closing. Lt. Zhang turned in and attempted to help but in the chaos of the furball he oversaw another MiG very close to him, and there was a collision in the air, so he had to eject out of the disabled F-86. While he was descending hanging under the parachute, he saw the MiG pilot was not far away from him, under the parachute, too. A moment later, he saw the F-86 of Capt. Ding turning back and opening fire at them. He got several holes in his parachute, but fortunately he was low enough already and landed safely. (Capt. Ding later said he did not do it).
Once he landed, Lt. Zhang was captured by the Chinese soldiers. They first told him that bailed-out MiG pilot was killed by the other Sabre while still in the air under his parachute. Then they took him to interrogation at the local HQs, before he was sent to the FHQ of the local PLAAF Army. Subsequently, the Chinese let him meet his relatives in Sechuan and - together with another captured ROCAF pilot - took him to see some other places in China. Then one day the Communist authorities asked both of them if they wanted to go back to Taiwan. They say yes. The Communists notified the Taiwan authorities at Kim-Men Island and sent a fishing boat to take them there. Once close under the coast, the The KimMen soldiers opened fire on them, and they had to waive the white flag really hard. Nevertheless, after some screaming, they were allowed to land.
Both released CNAF pilots were interrogated again by the Taiwan units, but apparently worse then by the Communists! The worst were US interrogators, which went into details about anyone they saw in China and what they look like, as well as about all the details of all buildings they were in. Afterwards, the ROCAF gave Lt. Zhang a desk job, obviously mistrusting him: even all his old friends turned away from him. Only his Squadron boss understood his situation and would not let him down. Whatever, the situation became so bad, that the Lt. Zhang subsequently emigrated in the USA: his flying career was therefore over on 10 October 1958.
The rest of this story, however, explains some additional details about the fate of Lt. Zhang. As several MiGs managed to gain height and engaged the Sabres in a dogfight, he was covering his leader when spotting a MiG closing. Lt. Zhang turned in and attempted to help but in the chaos of the furball he oversaw another MiG very close to him, and there was a collision in the air, so he had to eject out of the disabled F-86. While he was descending hanging under the parachute, he saw the MiG pilot was not far away from him, under the parachute, too. A moment later, he saw the F-86 of Capt. Ding turning back and opening fire at them. He got several holes in his parachute, but fortunately he was low enough already and landed safely. (Capt. Ding later said he did not do it).
Once he landed, Lt. Zhang was captured by the Chinese soldiers. They first told him that bailed-out MiG pilot was killed by the other Sabre while still in the air under his parachute. Then they took him to interrogation at the local HQs, before he was sent to the FHQ of the local PLAAF Army. Subsequently, the Chinese let him meet his relatives in Sechuan and - together with another captured ROCAF pilot - took him to see some other places in China. Then one day the Communist authorities asked both of them if they wanted to go back to Taiwan. They say yes. The Communists notified the Taiwan authorities at Kim-Men Island and sent a fishing boat to take them there. Once close under the coast, the The KimMen soldiers opened fire on them, and they had to waive the white flag really hard. Nevertheless, after some screaming, they were allowed to land.
Both released CNAF pilots were interrogated again by the Taiwan units, but apparently worse then by the Communists! The worst were US interrogators, which went into details about anyone they saw in China and what they look like, as well as about all the details of all buildings they were in. Afterwards, the ROCAF gave Lt. Zhang a desk job, obviously mistrusting him: even all his old friends turned away from him. Only his Squadron boss understood his situation and would not let him down. Whatever, the situation became so bad, that the Lt. Zhang subsequently emigrated in the USA: his flying career was therefore over on 10 October 1958.
版主在哪里。。。。。。
9月24日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：海航2师5团击落二架F-86（温州南箕山），被击落一架（王自重），坠毁一架。空14师被击伤一架（三都澳）。空16师击伤一架F-86（大田）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：声称是四年来最辉煌的胜利，击落米格17共十架，可能击落六架（合众国际社台北9月24日电）。台湾宣传中并称击落十架匪机“这个数字是最保守的鉴定结果”。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：台湾方面的宣传中，一会儿说是三十二架军刀和一百多架米格十七对战，一会儿又说是十八架飞机空战（当晚出席育乐中心庆功宴的也是十八人）。除了十一大队的十八架飞机，另外的十四架来自何处？为什么宣传庆功没有他们的事？
www.sbanzu.com
9月25日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师击伤F-86一架（漳浦）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：未见记录。
www.sbanzu.com
10月3日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空16师击落C-46两架。
台湾方面：承认被击伤一架（刘文灿机组，何世光、王同安负伤）。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：金门炮战期间，台湾方面承认的C-46损失一共有多少架？
www.sbanzu.com
10月10日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：击落F-86两架（不算高炮部队的战绩）。被击落一架（杜凤瑞）。
台湾方面：击落五架，击伤一架。被撞毁一架（张乃军）。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：有人说台湾方面当天出动了八架F-86，途中一架故障由僚机护送返航。但也有的文章里说只有六架军刀起飞。问题是如果真的出动了八架。那么返航的两架是谁？下落如何？
www.sbanzu.com
说张乃军坚持撞毁之说是有点滑稽的，大陆方面能确认的损失只有一架，张乃军真的撞掉一架，那丁定中的照相枪记录就要受到质疑了。
www.sbanzu.com
统计一下：从7月29日起至10月10日止，大陆方面声称击落14架，承认被击落或坠毁8架（包括海航的2架）；台湾方面声称击落32架（包括8月7日声称击落的1架），承认被击落或坠毁4架。
www.sbanzu.com
现在问题在于台湾方面的真实损失是多少，目前还未见内部资料说明。中方的损失，据10月11日空军呈送给中央军委的报告，应该是比较确定的。该报告称自7月27日入闽以来，空战11次，击落国民党军飞机12架（未计入海航的空战结果）、击伤6架，我被击落4架（未计入坠毁一架及被己方高炮击落的一架。另，空军的报告亦未计入海航的两架损失）被击伤4架，牺牲飞行员3名（未计入海航的王自重。另外，如果赵清洁或朱清洁阵亡，应该是4人。所以，存在两种可能：一是918空战大陆并没有飞行员阵亡；二是未计入被高炮击落的刘维敏。这一点似乎还有待于更多的材料）。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：海航2师5团击落二架F-86（温州南箕山），被击落一架（王自重），坠毁一架。空14师被击伤一架（三都澳）。空16师击伤一架F-86（大田）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：声称是四年来最辉煌的胜利，击落米格17共十架，可能击落六架（合众国际社台北9月24日电）。台湾宣传中并称击落十架匪机“这个数字是最保守的鉴定结果”。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：台湾方面的宣传中，一会儿说是三十二架军刀和一百多架米格十七对战，一会儿又说是十八架飞机空战（当晚出席育乐中心庆功宴的也是十八人）。除了十一大队的十八架飞机，另外的十四架来自何处？为什么宣传庆功没有他们的事？
www.sbanzu.com
9月25日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师击伤F-86一架（漳浦）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：未见记录。
www.sbanzu.com
10月3日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空16师击落C-46两架。
台湾方面：承认被击伤一架（刘文灿机组，何世光、王同安负伤）。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：金门炮战期间，台湾方面承认的C-46损失一共有多少架？
www.sbanzu.com
10月10日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：击落F-86两架（不算高炮部队的战绩）。被击落一架（杜凤瑞）。
台湾方面：击落五架，击伤一架。被撞毁一架（张乃军）。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：有人说台湾方面当天出动了八架F-86，途中一架故障由僚机护送返航。但也有的文章里说只有六架军刀起飞。问题是如果真的出动了八架。那么返航的两架是谁？下落如何？
www.sbanzu.com
说张乃军坚持撞毁之说是有点滑稽的，大陆方面能确认的损失只有一架，张乃军真的撞掉一架，那丁定中的照相枪记录就要受到质疑了。
www.sbanzu.com
统计一下：从7月29日起至10月10日止，大陆方面声称击落14架，承认被击落或坠毁8架（包括海航的2架）；台湾方面声称击落32架（包括8月7日声称击落的1架），承认被击落或坠毁4架。
www.sbanzu.com
现在问题在于台湾方面的真实损失是多少，目前还未见内部资料说明。中方的损失，据10月11日空军呈送给中央军委的报告，应该是比较确定的。该报告称自7月27日入闽以来，空战11次，击落国民党军飞机12架（未计入海航的空战结果）、击伤6架，我被击落4架（未计入坠毁一架及被己方高炮击落的一架。另，空军的报告亦未计入海航的两架损失）被击伤4架，牺牲飞行员3名（未计入海航的王自重。另外，如果赵清洁或朱清洁阵亡，应该是4人。所以，存在两种可能：一是918空战大陆并没有飞行员阵亡；二是未计入被高炮击落的刘维敏。这一点似乎还有待于更多的材料）。
dispassion
一等兵【3】
发表时间： 2007-12-29 18:57:24编辑引用回复快速留言赠送鲜花举报
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
一些疑问
www.sbanzu.com
沈卫平的书我没有看过，网上转贴的看了看，觉得他至少是掌握不少内部资料的。我也对比一下双方的说法，大陆方面主要用空军简明战史中的数据，比较权威一点；台湾方面主要采用对方59年出版的宣传资料。如果谁有台湾方面的内部材料，希望可以出示解惑。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面的58年空战，都是从7月29日算起的；台湾则一般从8月14日的空战算起，这是双方第一个分歧。
一等兵【3】
发表时间： 2007-12-29 18:57:24编辑引用回复快速留言赠送鲜花举报
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
一些疑问
www.sbanzu.com
沈卫平的书我没有看过，网上转贴的看了看，觉得他至少是掌握不少内部资料的。我也对比一下双方的说法，大陆方面主要用空军简明战史中的数据，比较权威一点；台湾方面主要采用对方59年出版的宣传资料。如果谁有台湾方面的内部材料，希望可以出示解惑。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面的58年空战，都是从7月29日算起的；台湾则一般从8月14日的空战算起，这是双方第一个分歧。
7月29日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师在南澳岛上空击落F-84二架，击伤一架。
台湾方面：承认被击落二架（中央社新闻）。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师在南澳岛上空击落F-84二架，击伤一架。
台湾方面：承认被击落二架（中央社新闻）。
8月7日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空9师在晋江上空击伤F-86一架（大陆方称被击伤的是台湾空军第五大队副大队长汪梦泉）。
台湾方面：声称击落一架。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：究竟是否有此事，台湾方面资料如何显示？
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空9师在晋江上空击伤F-86一架（大陆方称被击伤的是台湾空军第五大队副大队长汪梦泉）。
台湾方面：声称击落一架。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：究竟是否有此事，台湾方面资料如何显示？
8月13日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：海航4师10团击伤RF-84侦察机二架（福州龙田，闽江口上空）。
台湾方面：未见。
www.sbanzu.com
以上是8月14日空战之前的情况。之后的空战双方存在更多歧异的说法。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：海航4师10团击伤RF-84侦察机二架（福州龙田，闽江口上空）。
台湾方面：未见。
www.sbanzu.com
以上是8月14日空战之前的情况。之后的空战双方存在更多歧异的说法。
8月14日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空16师击落F-86二架，击伤一架（平潭岛）。空16师被击落一架（周春富）。
台湾方面：击落三架（据民47年8月14日下午2时中央日报号外。当日电台新闻报道中，称击落两架，可能击落一架），地点也称是平潭岛。被击落一架（刘光灿）。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：Light说刘光灿的损失当天中央日报、联合报都报道了，但称是在平潭上空失事殉职。台湾的宣传资料上59年仍然只说是三比零。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空16师击落F-86二架，击伤一架（平潭岛）。空16师被击落一架（周春富）。
台湾方面：击落三架（据民47年8月14日下午2时中央日报号外。当日电台新闻报道中，称击落两架，可能击落一架），地点也称是平潭岛。被击落一架（刘光灿）。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：Light说刘光灿的损失当天中央日报、联合报都报道了，但称是在平潭上空失事殉职。台湾的宣传资料上59年仍然只说是三比零。
和中方资料对比，双方存在一个共同之点，即当天台湾参加空战的只有七架。但台湾宣传资料中所透露的矛盾之处是，刘宪武中队的四号机于11点15分报告座舱增压失灵，奉令返航（空战时间据台湾资料应该是11时33分之后）。据目前所知的情况，返航者是梁金中中尉。而当时宣传八一四空战七位“英雄”时，却像模像样地写道：“据他（梁金中）居高临下所看到的情形分析说，匪机的技术太差了”。照理梁金中如果11时15分即返航，就不可能参加11时33分在平潭上空的空战。那么，这么做的目的，是不是拿梁金中来代替被击落的刘光灿，制造“无一损失”的假象呢？
8月25日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空9师击落F-86二架（漳州上空）。被击落一架（刘维敏）。
台湾方面：击落二架。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：台湾方面资料宣传的是蒋天恩等八人进行空战，但也透露在同一空域中“敌机还有四十架四层分布，我支援的飞机XX架亦分批在空中监视”，至少说明当日还有其它飞机参战。究竟当天其它飞机的情况如何呢？
www.sbanzu.com
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空9师击落F-86二架（漳州上空）。被击落一架（刘维敏）。
台湾方面：击落二架。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：台湾方面资料宣传的是蒋天恩等八人进行空战，但也透露在同一空域中“敌机还有四十架四层分布，我支援的飞机XX架亦分批在空中监视”，至少说明当日还有其它飞机参战。究竟当天其它飞机的情况如何呢？
www.sbanzu.com
9月8日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师54团击落一架F-86，击伤一架（东山岛上空）。该团被击落一架（飞行员安全跳伞），被击伤二架。有的资料称被击落一架（王保钧），另一架进入螺旋未改出，飞行员跳伞（高长吉）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：于澄海海外上空击落七架，击伤二架（据中央日报9月8日下午号外）。空战发生于上午11时03分至11时19分。被击伤一架（据上述号外，“此役我机一架受伤，惟已安返基地，飞行员亦安全无恙”）。被击伤飞机的飞行员为刘宪武。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：我查到同时期空18师似乎有叫王宝珊的副团长或团长。有没有人能提供关于王保钧的详细经历？
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师54团击落一架F-86，击伤一架（东山岛上空）。该团被击落一架（飞行员安全跳伞），被击伤二架。有的资料称被击落一架（王保钧），另一架进入螺旋未改出，飞行员跳伞（高长吉）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：于澄海海外上空击落七架，击伤二架（据中央日报9月8日下午号外）。空战发生于上午11时03分至11时19分。被击伤一架（据上述号外，“此役我机一架受伤，惟已安返基地，飞行员亦安全无恙”）。被击伤飞机的飞行员为刘宪武。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：我查到同时期空18师似乎有叫王宝珊的副团长或团长。有没有人能提供关于王保钧的详细经历？
9月18日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师52团击落一架F-86，击伤一架。被击落一架，被击伤一架。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：击落五架，至少击伤一架。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：大陆被击落的飞行员究竟是叫赵清洁还是朱清洁？到底阵亡了没有？
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师52团击落一架F-86，击伤一架。被击落一架，被击伤一架。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：击落五架，至少击伤一架。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：大陆被击落的飞行员究竟是叫赵清洁还是朱清洁？到底阵亡了没有？
9月24日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：海航2师5团击落二架F-86（温州南箕山），被击落一架（王自重），坠毁一架。空14师被击伤一架（三都澳）。空16师击伤一架F-86（大田）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：声称是四年来最辉煌的胜利，击落米格17共十架，可能击落六架（合众国际社台北9月24日电）。台湾宣传中并称击落十架匪机“这个数字是最保守的鉴定结果”。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：台湾方面的宣传中，一会儿说是三十二架军刀和一百多架米格十七对战，一会儿又说是十八架飞机空战（当晚出席育乐中心庆功宴的也是十八人）。除了十一大队的十八架飞机，另外的十四架来自何处？为什么宣传庆功没有他们的事？
www.sbanzu.com
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：海航2师5团击落二架F-86（温州南箕山），被击落一架（王自重），坠毁一架。空14师被击伤一架（三都澳）。空16师击伤一架F-86（大田）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：声称是四年来最辉煌的胜利，击落米格17共十架，可能击落六架（合众国际社台北9月24日电）。台湾宣传中并称击落十架匪机“这个数字是最保守的鉴定结果”。
www.sbanzu.com
疑问：台湾方面的宣传中，一会儿说是三十二架军刀和一百多架米格十七对战，一会儿又说是十八架飞机空战（当晚出席育乐中心庆功宴的也是十八人）。除了十一大队的十八架飞机，另外的十四架来自何处？为什么宣传庆功没有他们的事？
www.sbanzu.com
9月25日
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师击伤F-86一架（漳浦）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：未见记录。
www.sbanzu.com
大陆方面：空18师击伤F-86一架（漳浦）。
www.sbanzu.com
台湾方面：未见记录。
请教，建国以后一直到改革开放前，台湾海峡的制空制海权 ...
建国以后至改革开放前的这段时间国共两党在香港的明争暗 ...
新中国建国前30年与改革开放
请教建国以后国内的数学在国际上是什么地位
TG有没有从北伐、红军、八路、解放军一直到建国的士兵？
一直有人说建国前30年中国外交如何牛×，真的是那么回事 ...
从古至今,战争的动因一直没有变,即使以后到宇宙战争
一直以为被变异蜘蛛咬到以后变异成蜘蛛侠的设定很BC，直 ...
请教一下,从建国到现在咱们仿制的型号都有哪些啊?对应的 ...
中国石油生命线：从马六甲海峡到台湾海峡
为什么改革开放以后中国的动画片水平越来越烂
改革开放以后的中国人口政策和教育政策问题