Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=20110)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gavinb (Post 412037)

Kurfurst,

I don't want to further encourage your behaviour by responding, but in this case I can't help myself.

If 'gbailey's claimed identity is true, I am afraid that would be even more concerning, as there is a proven misrepresentation of a historical source and probably worthy to the attention of the Rector of Dundee University, as well as Professor Black and Professor Dobson, for further investigation into professional standards and lack of civil conduct in the public, which may pose questions about the suitability of the candidate, who refuses to address the question directly, upon having been caught in the act.

I look forward to the results of your contact with Professors Dobson and Black, particularly as I share an office with Tony Black, and regularly speak to Alan Dobson who was my PhD supervisor and who remains a respected colleague. I suspect all three of us would welcome the entertainment at the moment.

Their email addresses are available on the same web page as I provided earlier, which also has my email address (in case that was presenting you with any difficulties).

Hopefully you will not experience the same difficulty contacting them as you seem to have experienced in contacting me to date. I can assure you that any complaint you make will be regarded with the merit it deserves.

In that respect, in case you want any pointers in how to research and present genuine historical inquiry, I direct you to Tony's excellent second edition of The History of Islamic Political Thought from the Prophet to the Present, and Alan's recent and commendable FDR and Civil Aviation.

Gavin Bailey

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air. I hope you now feel relieved and content, and shall find engaging in academic debate less stressful on your capacity to defend your (mistaken) point of view.

Alas, I must note that you still failed to properly address your earlier attempt to misrepresent the historical truth, so I must take your deep and lasting silence on issue of misrepresenting historical sources as a sign that you have recognized your error and you have choose to revoke your earlier nonsense about the German 100 octane use in the Battle.

I hope your future 'research' in the subject of the Luftwaffe aviation fuels shall be far more successful, less amateurish than your earlier attempts showed. On my part, I have found the debate most rewarding, given the end result and your hollow but futile arrogance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 412065)

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air........ given the end result and your hollow but futile arrogance.

writing about yourself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 412065)

I see your response again is limited again to venting out bit of hot air.

http://fitskitz.com/wp-content/uploa...-in-Mirror.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 412061)

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

"If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, flies like a duck......then, by gawd, it IS a duck." A 100-octane duck! :grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 412030)

They are not different papers. They are subsequent reports in the same trail of papers, prepared by the same men, working for the Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee.

They are different papers. We are looking at the BOB and its that period that is of interest. Obviously things changed latere but in the BOB period it looks as if the Luftwaffe used captured stocks for at least some of their aircraft.

I haven't read the paper but trust official documents

I do not doubt that the same people prepared later papers but we are looking at the BB period

Quote:

Of course if you are set out to prove that the American contribution of high octane aviation fuel was not significant, and the Brits could do it all by themselves, you might also want to 'prove', by omitting otherwise available information that those poor Germans had to do with whatever British 100 octane stock they could find.

It does look like that in the BOB period doesn't it.

Quote:

Of course such views become very comical, when you know that Germany was producing domestically all its 100 octane needs, while Britain was importing it or later given by Lend-Lease, and in fact that British desire in 1938 for 100 octane was fueled by fear that German synthetic plans could essentially produce as much 100 octane as they wanted, and Britain did not want to be left behind in the technology race.

Unfortunately Germany never did produce sufficient for its needs

Quote:

Either its quite simply intellectually dishonest to say the Germans had nothing else but 87 octane fuel, and relied on captured British 100 octane stock, because a report on German 87 octane fuel samples - surprise surprise! - lists only 87 octane fuel samples and one British 100 octane sample. Especially when the next report in the pile of papers says that German 100 octane fuel samples were found in 110s, 88s etc. in the same period.

Not the same period a later period, your own paper proves it.

Quote:

That may even be a honest mistake, but in that case the 'research' was very superficial and amateurish.

This from the man who never even tried to get a copy of the Pips posting is pretty good.

Quote:

Either case, whoever he is, his opinion is sadly mistaken and instead of addressing it and admitting the mistakes, he resorts to incivility and thin verbal diarrhea.

Important note, we know who he is, we know where he works, we know that he is open to being contacted, we know know who he works with, we know nothing about you. As for resorting to incivility, do you really want me to go through this thread and list the jibs and worse that you have aimed at everyone? More importantly do you want me to list the questions you have refused to reply to?

Quote:

I would also like to know your version. Do you believe the Germans did not use 100 octane in the Battle of Britain? Do you believe that the only 100 octane they had access to was captured British stocks?

I don't know and am not guessing, but it makes sense that the Luftwaffe would use RAF stocks probably in addition to some of their own. Its valuble fuel and there is no point pouring it away. There is no doubt that the report was very specific in saying that the only example was RAF stock, that you can rubbish or deny but doesn't alter that fact that is what the report says..

Quote:

So combat sorties amounted quite typically to about just 40% of the total consumption. The remaining 60% is non-operational flights in combat units, which none of your calculations take into account, nor the requirements of bomber command's Blenheim Sqns.

I go from evidence which can be measured not made up calculations, there is the old phrase that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. However I did point out that operational vs non operational consumption in May 1941 was approx 50%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 412087)

Certainly. The papers quite clearly state the British first captured samples of German synthetic, 'Green' C-3 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain. That is to say, the claim that the Germans were relying completely on captured British 100 octane stocks is demonstrated to be false and unfounded, and against what is said in the very series of reports.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_003.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-2-c3_005.jpg

Quote:

I do not doubt that the same people prepared later papers but we are looking at the BB period

Yes, we should look at the BoB period.

The papers say the British obtained four samples of German produced synthethic C-3 in the BoB period:

Sample GF 28 from a Ju 88, in 'Summer of 1940'.
Sample 40/41 from a Bf 110, on '27 September 1940'.
Sample GF 31 from a Bf 110, in 'Automn 1940'.
Sample GF 32 from a Bf 110, in 'Automn 1940'.

All of these were samples of German produced 100 octane fuel. Summer of 1940, 27 September 1940, Automn of 1940 does sound like BoB period to me.

They list one sample of what is believed captured British 100 octane.

Denial in the face of this evidence is beyond comic.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...2-c3_table.jpg

Quote:

It does look like that in the BOB period doesn't it.

Again, four samples of German 100 octane, one sample of British 100 octane was found in the BOB period and listed in these papers. To claim the only sample was found and it was from British source is simply false and ill-informed.

Quote:

Unfortunately Germany never did produce sufficient for its needs

That's a curious statement. It does seem to me that in the first half of 1941, practically all of the German first line fighters (Bf 109E/N, Bf 109F-1, F-2) were running on 100 octane fuel.

Quote:

Not the same period a later period, your own paper proves it.

Again my own paper lists samples of German produced 100 octane fuel, from Summer of 1940, 27 September 1940, Automn of 1940, which does sound like the same BoB period.

Quote:

This from the man who never even tried to get a copy of the Pips posting is pretty good.

Claimed by the man who repeatedly lies that I did not try to get a copy of Pips posting despite I have made clear several times that I did contact pips and searched the online archives. Cute.

Quote:

Important note, we know who he is, we know where he works, we know that he is open to being contacted, we know know who he works with, we know nothing about you.

Well I know he appears everywhere NZTyphoon appears, he has misrepresented a piece of historical evidence, made a revisionist claim about the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle, refuses to post his papers, and does not answers any questions.

That's more than enough for me to assert his level of credibility, whoever he is.

Quote:

As for resorting to incivility, do you really want me to go through this thread and list the jibs and worse that you have aimed at everyone? More importantly do you want me to list the questions you have refused to reply to?

Please do. Go ahead an entertain me. I can go an list how many times I have answer the same questions you keep asking, and how many times you have refused to post the full contents of the papers you are referring to, despite repeatedly asked.

Quote:

Well again the report is indeed very specific about that the British found several samples of C-3, and readily acknowledged its use during the Battle of Britain. You seem to be in denial of German 100 octane use in the Battle of Britain.

Its interesting though. You claim all British fighter squadrons were using 100 octane during the Battle and deny that the Germans were using their own 100 octane at the same time. A not so well hidden agenda perhaps..?

Quote:

Well its hard evidence, but we seem to agree to dismiss NZTyphoon's calculations on the ground of it's unreliability and gross simplicity.

Quote:

So what about the combat reports that show the use of +12 boost, which was only allowed in when 100 octane fuel was used?

Those are good evidence only when placed in context in a timeline. Without context, they are useless.

they show the date.:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 412045)

It is a huge "fly in the ointment" to the crowd claiming Fighter Command converted in the Spring 1940. People in this thread have bought into a position based on logistical documentation and not on operational documentation.

The trouble for you is that this is a fly in your ointment.

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

I would have mentioned 'crowd' but I don't think "Crump & Kurfurst" constitutes one lol

Frankly, you and your bumpal can say whatever you like - the game is over, and in the end not only have you lost but you've lost credibility too. You mug lmao