Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Simple blatant lie. See:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=42
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=43

Actually the lie is yours, you lie by omission. Your links are an incomplete listing of combat reports, there are more than these available if you bother to look through the previously mentioned threads, needless to say, you have a vested interest in not doing so. AND in addition to the combat reports there are the administrative reports and photographs, listing deliveries or showing 100 octane being present at fields in fuelers.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And another. The memo is a circular that was of course generally to be circulated to all Groups.

You keep throwing these 'lie' words about, yet the facts show you are the one who is misleading people...

Dowding's memo is a normal chain of command directive to all Group Commanders which was in turn to be communicated to all Squadron commanders and thence pilots. The Memo specifically says the memo is to be copied "...to all Squadrons and fighter stations". The content is worded and directed "Handling of Merlin in Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant Aircraft", ie. instructions directed to the pilots who flew the aircraft.

Pdf here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Why send a memo the contents of which are for the instruction of ALL fighter pilots unless those pilots are all using 100 octane?

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please.

Such demands... You already have seen the relevant memo many times over and unless your memory is as poor as your reasoning, you should be quite aware of the directive changing specifications for newer aircraft.

Memo dated March 20th 1940, noting the changes required to allow use of +12 boost notes modifications for aircraft already in field service. These are for engines manufactured prior to the approval for use of 100 octane and +12 boost.

As you know, once an engine modification has been officially tested and approved, Rolls Royce gave that mod a number and it was implemented on the factory floor for new engine manufactures.

The modification for the boost cutout valve is listed in the memo as 'Mod Number Merlin/154', ie. it is officially approved and now part of the engine production regime. It is a very simple case of drilling a couple of holes, shown in the official instructional drawing released with the modification. (Drg. No. A.P. 1590B/J.2/40) This drawing and the instruction would have been incorporated into the Merlin III assembly handbook used by factory mechanics, and all new Merlins would have this incorporated.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually, evidence for the use of 100 octane fuel is far more decisive and reliable than in the case of the RAF.

For example, we do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know how many Merlins were converted and were in service use for 100 octane. We do not know how many RAF Fighter Stations were issued 100 octane fuel, apart from the 'certain' number 'concerned'. We do not know even how many FC Squads were using the fuel at the same time.

All we have is a handful of RAF fans who keep screaming hysterically, and showing childish innuendo waving around the same 3 worn pages over and over again, and try to read into them something they wish for but the papers do not say.

Again, your memory seems to be failing you. In fact, rather than 3 pages, we have presented dozens, close to hundreds of pages of documentation, they can be found in the threads linked earlier. Holding your breath and pretending not to be aware of them will not make them disappear.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In contrast, we know all this for the German side and have a much clearer picture without any need of dubious 'interpretation' by biased fanatics. The facts are plainly on the table. We know when, where, and how many planes were flying with DB 601N and in what units. Which is why there's so much less hysteria about it - well apart the aforementioned fanatics. Solid research does that.

You are very strict about demanding proof from the British side, strange how there doesn't seem to be a quid pro quo as far as the standard of proof on your side. Perhaps you'd like to present your clear documentation comprehensively in a thread? I have yet to see examples of this 'solid research' in a thread entitled 'Use of high octane and the DB601N engine during the BoB'.

So how about it?

[Glider]

All

Can anyone supply any information (apart from a pre war planning paper) that indicates that 100 Octane wasn't available to all of fighter Command.

The only one that I can think of is the posting from Pips which I have commented on in some detail and I cannot believe that anyone will nail their flags to that mast.

In the WW2aircraft forum Kurfurst did just that until awkward questions were asked such as:-
a) How do 30+ different squadrons share 125 aircraft
b) What happens about replacements
c) Why would a nation fighting for its life leave 350-400, 000 tons of high octane fuel sitting around unused when the changes to the aircraft were small and the impact in performance huge.

What evidence do they have remembering that every book both tactical and technical by every historian and every memoir supports the fact that it was supplied.

You can agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, lets see what evidence you can supply for us to agree or disagree.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Actually the lie is yours, you lie by omission. Your links are an incomplete listing of combat reports, there are more than these available if you bother to look through the previously mentioned threads, needless to say, you have a vested interest in not doing so. AND in addition to the combat reports there are the administrative reports and photographs, listing deliveries or showing 100 octane being present at fields in fuelers.

Yada yada yada....

You claim that all stations received the fuel and there documentation to.
It was shown to you which stations are indicated by this documentation, combat reports etc.
You now claim that certain stations/combat reports are omissioned.

You change the subject whenever it gets hot, and it threatens you with doing some actual research and providing evidence for your claims. Fine.The listing was compliled by the Grinch, and I trust he has done an honest job at it.

If you believe some stations were left out, list them. II expect that you will change the subject again and remain silent about this, probably resorting to another ad hominem attack or making another stupid claim you can't back up.

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

You keep throwing these 'lie' words about, yet the facts show you are the one who is misleading people...

You keep throwing about ad hominem insults all the time, attack posters but that only shows how childish you are and how utterly incapable of showing anything that would support your point. You are a waste of time for everyone here.

Why send a memo the contents of which are for the instruction of ALL fighter pilots unless those pilots are all using 100 octane?

For the same reason they sent out 150 grade instructions in the Spitfire IX to all Groups in ADGB in 1944, even when only two IX Squadrons (Nos 1 and 165) were actually operating on the fuel on an operational trials. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

Its simply common good sense and practice to circulate such letters to everyone. It was done everywhere.

Memo dated March 20th 1940, noting the changes required to allow use of +12 boost notes modifications for aircraft already in field service. These are for engines manufactured prior to the approval for use of 100 octane and +12 boost.

As you know, once an engine modification has been officially tested and approved, Rolls Royce gave that mod a number and it was implemented on the factory floor for new engine manufactures.

The modification for the boost cutout valve is listed in the memo as 'Mod Number Merlin/154', ie. it is officially approved and now part of the engine production regime. It is a very simple case of drilling a couple of holes, shown in the official instructional drawing released with the modification. (Drg. No. A.P. 1590B/J.2/40) This drawing and the instruction would have been incorporated into the Merlin III assembly handbook used by factory mechanics, and all new Merlins would have this incorporated.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg[/QUOTE]

Well there you go! You were right on this one doubt. Now how about supporting your other claims the same way?

Again, your memory seems to be failing you. In fact, rather than 3 pages, we have presented dozens, close to hundreds of pages of documentation, they can be found in the threads linked earlier.

"Close to hundreds" -

Actually what Glider does is posting the same three pages hundreds of times for the lack of evidence, perhaps that the thing that confused you. They say that certain fighter stations/squadrons concerned will receive 100 octane fuel.

Regardless that its pretty obvious that this means selected units, as was pointed out to him here by at least 3 other posters and numerous others at ww2aircraft.net, disproving his thesis, he continously misrepresents that and mirepresents what the papers say. Its funny, because I remember he used to say the same about them, but then argued that these papers were 'revised' later. When asked to tell when this supposedly happened, he kept shooting random dates, but every time asked to present the papers, he went silent.

And now he claims that 'certain' Fighter Stations 'concerned' actually reads 'all'.

Note - I have been asking Glider if he has the complete file, and every time he remains silent. Truth is that he has never been in the National Archives at all and never seen the files.

Holding your breath and pretending not to be aware of them will not make them disappear.

I don't want them to be disappear at all. The documents posted say that as of May 1940, only selected Fighter command stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
That's my point all the way through and pretty much everybody elses in both this thread and ww2aircraft.net boards.

You are very strict about demanding proof from the British side, strange how there doesn't seem to be a quid pro quo as far as the standard of proof on your side. Perhaps you'd like to present your clear documentation comprehensively in a thread? I have yet to see examples of this 'solid research' in a thread entitled 'Use of high octane and the DB601N engine during the BoB'.

So how about it?

I already did that on this board, ww2aircraft.net boards and on my website as well.

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually what Glider does is posting the same three pages hundreds of times for the lack of evidence, perhaps that the thing that confused you. They say that certain fighter stations/squadrons concerned will receive 100 octane fuel.

I notice a lack of evidence on your part here Kurfurst. I gave you two linking documents and admit I don't know why the person who received the paper said certain when the request was clear, but I didn't make any assumption. You have now made an assumption that it was limiting in some way, but in what way you don't know and don't supply anything to suggest what 'certain' meant interms of squadrons, bases, groups anything in fact.

Regardless that its pretty obvious that this means selected units, as was pointed out to him here by at least 3 other posters and numerous others at ww2aircraft.net, disproving his thesis

If I recall the debate went my way Kurfurst and no one disproved anything that I said.

, he continously misrepresents that and mirepresents what the papers say. Its funny, because I remember he used to say the same about them, but then argued that these papers were 'revised' later. When asked to tell when this supposedly happened, he kept shooting random dates, but every time asked to present the papers, he went silent.

Priceless

And now he claims that 'certain' Fighter Stations 'concerned' actually reads 'all'.

And where did I say that?

Note - I have been asking Glider if he has the complete file, and every time he remains silent. Truth is that he has never been in the National Archives at all and never seen the files.

I don'y have the complete file its huge, but I certainly went as a number of the documents were not in the public domain before I posted them

I don't want them to be disappear at all. The documents posted say that as of May 1940, only selected Fighter command stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
That's my point all the way through and pretty much everybody elses in both this thread and ww2aircraft.net boards.

Whch of us was banned from the WW2aircraft thread? and the Wikipedia editing thread? Me or you

That you or Glider wish to make up your own fantasies about that Germans didn't operationally employ 100 octane fuel is entirely your problem. Fact is that British pre-war desires to get 100 octane in their fighters was fueled by fears that the Germans were developing their engines for 100 octane fuel, and they were in a much better position to obtain 100 octane fuel, as they produced it themselves, and were not dependend on foreign availabilty or could be denied from it by blocking sea imports.

This is as you know total rubbish as documented in some detail by Gavin Bailey (a published historian from Dundee University) in his papers on fuel. You will remember him, the person you accused of coming from Pennsylvania, using another identity, purporting to be Gavin Bailey and grossly misrepresented his findings to the degree that he made formal complaints to the Wiki editing team.
Here is the link if you have difficulty remembering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ai...tle_of_Britain

What is missing from your tirade is any evidence to support your theory that the RAF wasn't effectively fully equipped with 100 Octane. All you have tried to do is distort other peolpes document supporting that theory.

PS do you still stick by Pips postins as the basis of your argument. If you don't then what is the basis of your argument?

[robtek]

Could you two fight this out via PM????
That would be a relief for this topic as your post are OT!
Talk about performance and not the reasons why or why not it was reached.

[Kurfürst]

I note you have again evaded my question.

Do you have the complete file of these meetings, Glider?

Answer the question if you want your questions to be answered.

Originally Posted by Glider

All

Can anyone supply any information (apart from a pre war planning paper) that indicates that 100 Octane wasn't available to all of fighter Command.

So its up to others to disprove the claim you've made but could not prove? Sorry it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is upon you, otherwise we would be in a nonsensical case of Russel's teapot:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

But since you need evidence, I direct you to the papers you posted, which say that only certain Fighter Stations concerned will receive the fuel. Since all Fighter Stations previously held 87 octane, it follows that certain other Fighter Stations that were not 'concerned' kept operating at 87 octane, and not 100 octane.

It's clear-cut, we have document that says only select Fighter Sqns were supplied with 100 octane, we have fuel deliveries showing that 2/3s to 4/5 of the concumption was 87 octane, we have Spitfire II pilots notes which show rating for both 87 and 100 octane, and we have the papers which show that conversion of stations to 100 octane did not re-commence until late September. By coincidence, fuel issues papers also show that 100 octane did not begin to replace 87 octane as the main fuel consumed until late September..

The only one that I can think of is the posting from Pips which I have commented on in some detail and I cannot believe that anyone will nail their flags to that mast.

In contrast I cannot remember any paper that would say all fighter stations are supplied with 100 octane fuel. You have actually admitted yourself earlier this thread, that you have not seen one either.

In the WW2aircraft forum Kurfurst did just that until awkward questions were asked such as:-
a) How do 30+ different squadrons share 125 aircraft
b) What happens about replacements
c) Why would a nation fighting for its life leave 350-400, 000 tons of high octane fuel sitting around unused when the changes to the aircraft were small and the impact in performance huge.

The only awkward thing was your stubborn defiance to accept the facts. Several other posters in WW2aircraft forum told you that your 'evidence' is simply not sufficient to make the claims you were making. If you wish to believe your own fairy tale, that's your problem.

Now to answer your questions.

a, This was answered WW2aircraft forums and here earlier in this thread. Your dishonesty represents itself in that
aa, You make a nonsensical strawmen arguement. Pips noted that apprx. 25% of FC converted to 100 octane in May, which, in May, represneted about 125 aircraft. And here you say turn this inside out by comparing that May 1940 apprxtion of 125 to combat reports by ca. 30 Squadrons between May 1940 and November 1940 in a seven month period. Who do you think you're fooling - yourself?

b, They are cut in small pieces, gently fried, salted and peppered according to taste, and served after chilled. I hope you do not find this answer any more awkwardd than your question was.

c, Because they simply did not have 400 tons of fuel. They had but half of that when the decision was made.
ca, The Germans were sinking British tankers at an increasing rate, and all 100 octane fuel was coming in those tankers
cb, Because they consider pre-war (see March 1939 paper, 16+2 Sqns w. 100 octane by September 1940) that reserves of 800 000 tons were needed to be built up. By the end of 1939 they had accumalated only 200 000 tons. Five months later, their reserves of 100 octane were still just 220 000 tons. They expected another 436 000 tons to arrive, but this was increasingly uncertain as Uboot took their toll on the tankers, and, during May and June, until the French capitulation, with 25% of their fighters and some of their bombers running on 100 octane the British consumed 12 000 tons of 100 octane and 42 000 tons of other (87) grades, or 54 000 ton of avgas at total - and there was no tanker running in with 100 octane until August 1940. Thus, as the situation looked in May-June and July, replacing other grades with 100 octane was thus simply out of the question, as they could run out of 100 octane in that case in roughly 5 months time.

What evidence do they have remembering that every book both tactical and technical by every historian and every memoir supports the fact that it was supplied.

Your claim that "every historian and every memoir supports" your claim that 100 octane was supplied to all Fighter Command stations is simply hogwash. You managed to present one such book, that concentrates on engines and not on operations (and thus likely in error as it was not the authors field) that says that. In contast a far more respected source, Spitfire the History who's authors went into extreme depths in research such as listing the detailed fate of every single Spitfire ever built clearly state that the original plan was 16 Fighter Squadrons to be supplied, but there were problems with supply due to the Uboot threat, though this was eased later. This is exactly what Pip's papers say, and in fact, the same thing your papers say, too.

You can agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, lets see what evidence you can supply for us to agree or disagree.

Glider,

Your paper of the 7th meeting in May 1940 says that only select Fighter Stations are supplied with 100 octane fuel.

Deal with that.

[TomcatViP]

Frankly I don't understand what are those ppl hijacking a game forum - that shld be dedicated mostly to young players - to rage a war that seems to count countless uneventful battles.

Now as I am not that much hypocrite I will tell you what I am thinking abt this debate that as lasted too long :

Firstly : Historically in none of the book that I hve read so far (and I hve read nearly a thousand on aviation field) have mentioned the fact that BoB RAF's Spitfire fleet did use 100oct
Secondly : none of you 10Other care much abt the Hurri despite that we know pretty well what Dowding fear most and the fact that Hurri were at that time accounting for two third of the RAF order of battle
Thirdly : your arguments (boost for HP and speed) regarding the use of 100oct does not fit any mechanical logic regarding the subsequent dev of the Merlin
Fourthly ; your over aggressive comments in such a sensitive time of history does not honor the fighting spirit of those "few" hundreds of men that didn't hesitate to make the ultimate sacrifice without loudly putting their case to the public(at least when all the pint of beer and bottle of whiskey stand at bay)
Fifth : The arguments you provided against does not convince us as much as those advocating the other thesis. If you can't prove that something does exist you can't say that it's a truth. Only believer can agree in certain case but I am sry to say that your lack of poetry and chivalry deserve your meaning.

Let's resume :
1st. We can say that some Spit and Hurri did rely to 100oct latte in BoB in frontline units.
2nd We can assume that 100oct was used on low alt raider bombers - perhaps "the some of the spits" were low alt escorting fighters. This makes more sense that 100oct being used at alt high fight (were BoB did occur : Bob was an anti-bomber campaign for the RaF !)
3rd The value for the HP provided are grossly overestimated and only focused on the Spit witch does not makes any sense as Spit and 109 were much close match and it seems to be well known for years
4th the Spit FM in CoD is so ridiculously CFS friendly that your lack of any ref to this fact makes your thesis very suspicious. If realism, impartiality and accuracy were your credo you sincerely miss there a strong opportunity to lift your case.
5th Average reader here (and I am one of us) does not know what are your anger against Kurf (with who I hve not particular preference but who did provide us better analysis in term of logics IMHO) but let me say that many of us does not approve any public hanging. In Eu these are( or must stay) facts of the past as are Nationalism, racism and revisionism...Thx so much to the very "Few" (and sadly millions of others)

I hope this sterile debate wld be close on this forum for now.


If you hve read all this text so far, thx for the time spent. Pls be assured that I don't want to hurt anyone based on quickly typed arguments on a public game forum. We are not historians.

~S!

[Glider]

I will drop the agression and let the documents speak for themselves. The reason I went into this debate was to try and ensure that when you model the aircraft for the sim you need to ensure that the RAF fighters are equiped with 100 Octan performance.

If you don't then you stand a very high chance of being ridiculed by some very knowledgable people who will want to know what the evidence is.

Whatever the comments some vital documents have not been questioned so I will only touch on those here.

The stocks of 100 Octane were very significant and grew during the battle to approx 400,000 tons by the end of the battle at a time when consumption was only 10,000 tons a month on average between June and August so there was no shortage of the fuel.

We know that the changes to the engines to use the fuel were small and the performance gains substantial and we know that 30+ squadrons used the fuel including units in France and Norway. It was 30+ not because we only found 30+ squadrons but because we only looked at 30+ squadrons. I am very confident that if we looked at the rest we would find the same but cannot guarantee it

Although said with vigour, my postings have been honest and as complete as I can make them. Look at the explanations I have given in a cool light and you will see that where I don't know I have said I don't know for instance where the original papers said certain. Where I have made an interpratation I have tried to support it and explain why I made it. An example being the request from the ACAS which was clear but the Oil Committee members said proposal and certain. In these cases you need to look at both papers not just the one.

I don't know which books you have read but if you go to any bookshop or look online you will find a number of books that cover this topic and all of them agree with the proposal that the RAF did equip fighter command with 100 Octane. If you want to send me a PM I will supply some suggestions but don't want to lead you. If you want a balanced view ask Kurfurst and he mght be able to suggest some. I would be interested to know what he suggests.

I do believe that those who don't believe that FC wasn't fully equipped have not put forward any evidence relying on a misinterptritation of the papers put forward by myself and others.

You may want to check out those links I gave to Wikki and the WW2aircraft site to get a feel for things and additional information.

Once again I suggest you think long and hard before distributing a product that doesn't have the RAF with 100 octane as standard for its fighters.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I notice a lack of evidence on your part here Kurfurst.

I notice the lack of meaning in your posts, Glider. You are become increasingly rhetorical. You want people to disprove you, after you have failed to prove your point.

Even when you kept posting the same papers - five times on every page - that say only a portion of Fighter is using 100 octane was better.

I gave you two linking documents and admit I don't know why the person who received the paper said certain when the request was clear, but I didn't make any assumption. You have now made an assumption that it was limiting in some way, but in what way you don't know and don't supply anything to suggest what 'certain' meant interms of squadrons, bases, groups anything in fact.

Assumption? How more ridiculus can you get? The paper you posted says certain squadrons, in fact, a whole series of papers from March 1939 to May 1940 keep saying again and again that the conversion is limited to certain squadrons, and you keep arguing that certain does not mean a limitation, but it means all Squadrons.

If I recall the debate went my way Kurfurst and no one disproved anything that I said.

Yes, but this recall is from a person who thinks that certain Squadrons means the opposite, it means all Squadrons. As for the debate, the only people agreeing you were some of the most biased and self-dillusional persons on the whole board, of whom everyone knows in advance what they will say, kinda like clones of that poor member Buzzsaw over here, or yourself. You have never managed to convince anyone because never managed to prove anything, therefore there was nothing to disprove. All you did was the same as here, spamming the thread with the same paper over and over again, and becoming increasingly rhetorical, and finally hysterical like a 7 year old, see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...tml#post449799

Ie. Vincenzo wrote:

"I read the docs in none it's write that 100 octane was in use in all the stations/squadrons (for hurri and spits), the docs clear that all spist and hurri can use the 100 octane fuel also with the engienes were not modified (but with no benefit). if i miss some show me."

Mkrabat42 also disagreed with you, and simply said that you only listed circumstantial evidence, but no solid proof to your case, and solid historical methods require things that you simply do not have.

I don'y have the complete file its huge, but I certainly went as a number of the documents were not in the public domain before I posted them

Well can we see the complete file, Glider? Or just the parts you wish us to see, cropped etc..?

Whch of us was banned from the WW2aircraft thread? and the Wikipedia editing thread? Me or you

Neither of us, actually. If I was banned from those threads, how on earth are my posts are there..? Hmm, Sherlock, how?

This is as you know total rubbish as documented in some detail by Gavin Bailey (a published historian from Dundee University) in his papers on fuel. You will remember him, the person you accused of coming from Pennsylvania, using another identity, purporting to be Gavin Bailey and grossly misrepresented his findings to the degree that he made formal complaints to the Wiki editing team.

No unfortunately its totally true, and I have posted the papers of the evidence. You are again pretending to have not seen them, which is dishonest. As for Gavin Bailey's papers, they do not say such a thing. (not the person impersonating him on ww2aircraft.net, who btw was so primitive in his behaviour that got in confrontation with mods and they had to clear up his hysterical rantings and close the first thread because of him, and who also made some nonsense claim about the only 100 octane fuel in German aircraft being 'captured British stock' - unfortunately I had to paper he was 'quoting' too and handed his ass to him real nice.)

Nobody misrepresented the real Gavin Bailey's paper, you can read it here below. It again says that select Fighter Command stations were fueled with 100 octane.

Here is the link if you have difficulty remembering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ai...tle_of_Britain

I see the a wiki talk page in which Minorhistorian/NZTyphoon was desperately trying to force in his own POV, even through falsifying sources, and at the same time, remove all references to German 100 octane fuel use in BoB) into article for months, ' all the sudden' appearance anonymous, non-registered IP appears and claims to be a historian... uhum. And I am Tina Turner.

What is missing from your tirade is any evidence to support your theory

Now, this is what describes your posts. That is why you've got these replies from just about everyone in this thread that you are behaving childish, that your papers don't say what you claim them to say and so on. You are an increasingly desperate, self-dillusional person who started from an extremely biased, nationalism-fueled POV and managed to convince only himself but nobody else, and now got increasingly frustrated, and increasingly aggressive - and increasingly impotent in his arguements.

All you have tried to do is distort other peolpes document supporting that theory.

Which is why everyone is telling YOU and not ME that the documents you posted don't support what you say... right?

PS do you still stick by Pips postins as the basis of your argument. If you don't then what is the basis of your argument?

Well that the May 1940 papers clearly say that 100 octane is only supplied to select fighter command stations, of course. Nobody is sticking to Pips; there is no need, everything points to the same direction and fits together nicely, without any need to rape the primary papers like you do. But you can live in your partisan world, and believe what you want, nobody actually cares.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

What is clear is we have an individual, Kurfurst, (who hides his real name) and who has been banned from two respected sources for information on the subject, Wikipedia and WWII Aircraft Forum, during similar debates, and for behaviour inappropriate and claims which cannot be substantiated.

Now he is repeating the same claims and commentary here, again without substantiation or documentation.

If anyone chooses to believe there is veracity in his posts, then I guess that is their right.