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

[lane]

Originally Posted by winny

I'm going to have a look at what other squadrons were operating out of Hornchurch, Biggin Hill and Duxford at the time too.

It's harder to find BoB combat reports than I thought, initially (with VERY limited data) it would appear that some 3 or 4 stations were first issued 100 oct in May/June, then more were added in July (found ref to 2)

Hi Winny – One should be careful to not draw the conclusion that a note in a combat report demonstrating 100 octane usage on a given date is an indication of when those stations "were first issued 100 oct".

For example:

Combat report of 151 Squadron from 18 May 1940 follows the squadron’s conversion to 100 octane fuel in February 1940:



Combat report of 611 Squadron from 2 June 1940 follows the squadron’s conversion to 100 octane fuel in March 1940:




Combat report of 74 Squadron from 24 May 1940 follows the conversion to 100 octane fuel in March 1940:




There are several combat reports available from units stationed at Hornchurch during the Dunkirk battle that mention +12 boost, demonstrating that the station and the units flying from there were supplied with 100 octane fuel. During the Dunkirk action in May/early June 1940 Nos. 19, 41, 54, 65, 74, 222, and 616 Squadrons in Spitfires were stationed at Hornchuch.

For example:




It follows that 19, 41, 54, 74, 222 and 616 squadrons were all supplied with 100 octane.

Similar analysis can be applied to other stations such as North Weald (56, 111 & 151):





...Biggin Hill (32, 79, 213, 229, 242, 610); Tangmere (601, 145), Hawkinge (245) Kenley, Northholt, etc, etc…

[winny]

Originally Posted by lane

Hi Winny – One should be careful to not draw the conclusion that a note in a combat report demonstrating 100 octane usage on a given date is an indication of when those stations "were first issued 100 oct".

You're right, I believe that more stations had 100 oct but can't find any hard evidence.. (except for a handfull of Operations records books)
I should have said the 'first recorded use in combat' of 100 oct. It gives us at least a provable date by which the relevant station must have had 100 oct on site..

I can now add to the list of stations with 100 oct before August 40.

I've got Hornchurch, Manston, Duxford, North Weald, Digby, Catterick, Biggin Hill, Croyden, Debden, Digby, Wick.

I'm trying to avoid making the assumption that if a certain station had 100 oct that all squadrons using that base would also be converted (even if it is a logical step). I think that was the case, but without evidence the argument gets stuck.

As we all know Kurfurst has very high, and hard to meet standards when it comes to what constitutes evidence.

If I was in charge of FC at the time I would have made sure that 11 and 12 group converted asap. I think that's probably what happened.

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by winny

As we all know Kurfurst has very high, and hard to meet standards when it comes to what constitutes evidence.

Oh realy, do we?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kongo-Otto

Oh realy, do we?

Yes really. He's pretty hard to please.

It was tounge in cheek.


I think kurfurst will take it in the spirit it was meant, we've been straight with each other in the past. Even if we disagree.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

Yes really. He's pretty hard to please.

It was tounge in cheek.


I think kurfurst will take it in the spirit it was meant, we've been straight with each other in the past. Even if we disagree.

All he has been asked to do is supply the one paper which isn't a huge request. After all it does form the basis of his position.

As for the straight bit, he stays polite until backed into a corner then the insults come think and fast. I think I was accused three times of being a lliar, one of holding information back and two of misrepreseting the facts when all I did was supply original documentation

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

All he has been asked to do is supply the one paper which isn't a huge request. After all it does form the basis of his position.

David, I think I told you about 8 times by know where did I learn about these papers, I gave you the refernce, the link to thread. The papers were found by Pips, in Australia. I know I really have to repeat this to you to sink in, but I am not Pips, nor do I live in Australia. So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact, for some reason you choose not to.. hmmm - or travel to Australia yourself.

So, may I ask why are you pretending to all these fine people there that you do not know all of the above?

Personally, I have no reason not to believe that Pips summary of the documents are honest and accurate.

As for the straight bit, he stays polite until backed into a corner then the insults come think and fast.

Oh, I am certain you'd like to push me into a corner, but Dave, you have to grow up to the task first. You have put forward a thesis, which so far you could not support with anything.
And I do not mean how you interpret them, because it takes quite a bit of imaginatory power to fill in the gaps, and these gaps can be filled both ways.

For example, you claim the December 1939 mentioning of Stations is a definiete order of these stations to be supplied, even though nobody seem to have approved the request (it may have been, but it is pure guesswork to say so).

You also claim that "certain" was either a typo (which is clearly against the trail of papers, I already pointed tihs out, actually only one paper does not use the limiting word, but it does on the previous page which you do not post..)

You also claim that two previous claims would be true, the 21 or so Stationed mentioned were equipped with 100 octane, and in your understanding, that what the 18 May 1940 paper say. But you still owe us an explanation how did this 20-odd station become 60-odd stations between May and July 1940. You do not even give guesswork how. You simply say it happened. When, how, you do not care. It must have happened.

I am afraid it is you who is cornered, not me. You see, everyone is asking you, not me, to put some substance in your claims. I guess everyone is a bit tired of of guy who registered on this board with an agenda and an axe to grind, and ever since does not doing anything but running in circles, and posting the same papers, even after just about everybody told him his interpretation of the papers is more than a bit wishful. After all, it is you who wave about a paper that says certain Squadrons are to convert, and say that means they all converted.

You have promised to do so, so we are eager to see your papers if you manage it to NA, and I hope we all learn from it. All I am asking is to support to papers.

If your papers prove your thesis, I do not doubt that anyone, including me, would express any doubts. But I have some experience with these type of discussions, every time someone fanatically wanted something extreme about such stuff to be true, ie. every single fighter suddenly getting a huge boost of power due to some unique exotic fuel overnight, which was only available to that side etc. etc. usually hit the brick wall and bounced back painfully. Just ask "lane" about how "all of Fighter command" converted to 150 grade fuel in 1944, +25 lbs XIVs he is chasing for twelve years, oh and BTW, why is the Monty Berger quote is missing from the end of his 150 grade article.

I think I was accused three times of being a lliar, one of holding information back and two of misrepreseting the facts when all I did was supply original documentation

No, you were told doing that because you were doing exactly that. You came here with an axe to grind, and insults to shot at me, and I think I was patient with you long enough. If I was thinking that you were holding back papers, I am sorry for that, but you were pretending long enough that you did went into the archieves and took shots of those papers yourself. It appears this is not the case, I guess "lane" throw a couple of papers/bones out of the whole to you. Knowing "lane" a bit, I guess you are up to a surprise or two when you look at the file in its completeness.

I do not think I wish to waste much time on this until you live up to your word and support the papers which establish the basis of your thesis. I await with an open mind.

In any case, thanks for your efforts and time in advance, also in the name of this community if I may, I guess many will like to read the decisions in these meetings between December 1939 and October 1940 in their completeness.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

David, I think I told you about 8 times by know where did I learn about these papers, I gave you the refernce, the link to thread. The papers were found by Pips, in Australia. I know I really have to repeat this to you to sink in, but I am not Pips, nor do I live in Australia. So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact, for some reason you choose not to.. hmmm - or travel to Australia yourself.

So, may I ask why are you pretending to all these fine people there that you do not know all of the above?

Personally, I have no reason to believe that Pips summary of the documents are honest and accurate.

People have contacted the Australian Archives about the Pips papers and the AA have had no success in producing these papers for viewing.

So, if you have no reason to believe that Pips summary of these Australian papers are honest and accurate, then why do you continue to use them?

Winny, Barbi is only hard to please when the subject of discussion is the British and the Spitfire. Unfortunately, when it comes to Nazi Germany and the 109, any thing will do to become an absolute factual truth.

And I do not mean how you interpret them, because it takes quite a bit of imaginatory power to fill in the gaps, and these gaps can be filled both ways.

That is hilarious Barbi. You definitely have quite a bit of imaginary power when it comes to the K-4 and 1.98ata boost. You should give up being a lawyer and become a comedian.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Yes really. He's pretty hard to please.

Comes with my trade I guess...

I think kurfurst will take it in the spirit it was meant, we've been straight with each other in the past. Even if we disagree.

Oh, have no worries about that, I know you're an honest chap.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by winny

As we all know Kurfurst has very high, and hard to meet standards when it comes to what constitutes evidence.

Only when it concerns the British. When it concerns the Germans, even the slightest hint is good enough for it to be an absolute true fact.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Only when it concerns the British. When it concerns the Germans, even the slightest hint is good enough for it to be an absolute true fact.

I do feel that the burden is always on us to prove him wrong instead of the other way round, which is unfair. There is more than one way to skin a cat though.

The thing is, if I found a doc tomorrow that proved that Kurfurst was right I'd post it. I'm not so sure if it happened the other way around that that would happen.

I just want to know that when I'm flying towards a 109 in a Spit that I've got exactly what the guys in 1940 had. I want the 109 guys to have exactly what the LW pilots had too.

In a combat simulator realistic FM's are paramount, otherwise its bollocks. Forget AA, textures, sound, terrain, clouds, lighting, balistics, dials and switches. If it dosn't fly right then it's not doing what a simulator should be doing.

I don't want it clouded by opinion, I want fact.



Regardless of emotional attachment to either the 109 or Spitfire.