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

[Kurfürst]

Credibility can add tons to the weight of a man's words.

I have no reason not to trust Pips account. He had no take or special interest in the matter, just shared his research's result.

On a different note, may I ask why you keep changing your login handles?

[Osprey]

Your first sentence makes no sense to me. But, may I ask why you avoid answering questions which destroy your argument? If you cannot answer without resorting to character assassination then you are defeated.

[klem]

What the hell do Australian Fuel Supplies in 1940 have to do with the Battle of Britain?

Are we seriously to believe that the British Government's reluctance to assist in the supply of 100 octane fuel to Australia, at a time when there was no war in the Australian region, was an indication that they didn't have enough for the RAF in Europe where there was a war raging? "Here you go Australia, we actually need it more than you do at the moment because we're trying to survive but we're nice guys so we'll take a chance ..."

The British 100 octane fuel position in 1940 is explained in many documents, links etc already posted. And if there was any doubt about sufficient supplies for the entire RAF does anyone seriously imagine that the key front line defence units (fighter squadrons) would have had to make do with anything less than the best that was available?

Oh, wait. We've already had that discussion.

I don't care if 87 octane aircraft are modelled as long as 100 octane types are too. Both fuels were available during the BoB. Beyond that, take it up with the mission builders.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by klem

What the hell do Australian Fuel Supplies in 1940 have to do with the Battle of Britain?

Are we seriously to believe that the British Government's reluctance to assist in the supply of 100 octane fuel to Australia, at a time when there was no war in the Australian region, was an indication that they didn't have enough for the RAF in Europe where there was a war raging? "Here you go Australia, we actually need it more than you do at the moment because we're trying to survive but we're nice guys so we'll take a chance ..."

Exactally

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by klem

What the hell do Australian Fuel Supplies in 1940 have to do with the Battle of Britain?

Of course there is no connection. However Kurfürst claims that the reason why the infamous Australian document exists is because the Australia Government "rigorously protested" to receive 100 octane fuel from Great Britain in February 1941. It was shown that this was not the case because
a) they didn't intent to switch to 100 octane fuel at that time,
b) they received the requested amount of 100 octane fuel to mix the 90 octane fuel required for the Catalinas and
c) they received the 100 octane fuel directly from Shell and Vacuum Oil Company without negotiation of Great Britain.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Credibility can add tons to the weight of a man's words.

I have no reason not to trust Pips account. He had no take or special interest in the matter, just shared his research's result.

Where is your evidence that this material actually exists? You have not viewed the material itself - Your words, not mine.

You are quoting material from another forum the thread of which which - conveniently - is no longer accessible: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...0&st=0&start=0

So either ask Pips - who you can easily connect, I gave you his contact

(http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20110&page=28)

So, you do have a contact for Mr Pip but cannot provide the material you so strenuously defend?

Have you actually searched for the papers yourself? You keep telling others to do so, but have not bothered to do some basic research of your own?

If you are so right about them, I would have thought you would have long ago jumped at the chance to present them and prove everyone else wrong - you know, embarrass the naysayers. Why haven't you?

It's easy enough to start a search, just go onto http://www.awm.gov.au/database/ go down to "Official Records" which puts you onto http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/using/search/ - The AWM and NAA use the same search engine. Type in the title, or keywords if you don't have the official archive numbers...

Alternatively you can go onto this page http://www.awm.gov.au/contact/ and directly ask a question http://awm.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?key=research

Its easy - no long trips to Australia needed, and anyone here can do it.

[Al Schlageter]

The Pip statement:

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

As can bee seen the above is total nonsense.

"By 11th July 1940 the RAF had 343,000 tons of 100 octane in store, and the rate of importation was such that stocks rose to 424,000 tons by 10th October, 1940 after 22,000 tons had been issued during the Battle. Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, The Narrow Margin. The Battle of Britain and the Rise of Air Power 1930-1940 (Hutchinson, London 1967. First published 1961), p.101-102. Importation from BP at Abadan alone was sufficient to meet this consumption. Bamberg, The History of the British Petroleum Company, p.244"

Less than 6% of the July stock was used during the BoB, so hardly well below the level considered necessary for widespread use.

NZ, this is from the link you posted.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Where is your evidence that this material actually exists? You have not viewed the material itself - Your words, not mine.

You are quoting material from another forum the thread of which which - conveniently - is no longer accessible: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...0&st=0&start=0

(http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20110&page=28)

Glider already tried this line. The Forum and the thread is easily accessible, for registered AND approved members.

So, you do have a contact for Mr Pip but cannot provide the material you so strenuously defend?

You can contact him on the forum in PM if he still reads it. Not much is happening there anymore.

Have you actually searched for the papers yourself? You keep telling others to do so, but have not bothered to do some basic research of your own?

Yes I asked Pips about them and tried the Australian archieve digital site. Few things are digitalised there unfortunately - one of them is named 'Proposal of securing 100 octane...'.

You have seen that one, I gave you the link, and IIRC you also got a heart attack when a British doc mentioned that one of their driving force for getting 100 octane is that German synth plants are so suitable for producing virtually any amount. So I am puzzled about why you ask if I had searched the site.

If you are so right about them, I would have thought you would have long ago jumped at the chance to present them and prove everyone else wrong - you know, embarrass the naysayers. Why haven't you?

Because I have a life and only a very passing interest the RAF... and to be honest I've probably had plowed too many young bucks like you into the ground already to find particular excitement in it anymore.

It's easy enough to start a search, just go onto http://www.awm.gov.au/database/ go down to "Official Records" which puts you onto http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/using/search/ - The AWM and NAA use the same search engine. Type in the title, or keywords if you don't have the official archive numbers...

Alternatively you can go onto this page http://www.awm.gov.au/contact/ and directly ask a question http://awm.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?key=research

Its easy - no long trips to Australia needed, and anyone here can do it.

Now, you see, I have done that before you even got to the University - no offense, but you should get a fair idea that I am actually into this stuff for, let's see 13 years now? - I have the above mentioned proposal of 100 octane fuel since March 2007. I know the AWM site, I have searched it. There's a lot of interesting stuff up there, but very little on 100 octane, at least, in an available form.

There are two practical problems:
- only a couple of random docs are digitized. I am quite sure there's a lot more WW2 100 octane in the AWM than the four or so papers it lists... some of the paper, like 'Proposals for...' is clearly copies of British papers.

- not all papers are entered into the registry. The paper recently shown and posted in this thread about the Australian attempt to buy/mix/steal/whatever 100/95/90 octane is only open since 2009 or so, at least as I recall from its sheet.

Archives often have only minimal staff and tons of papers, which is colossal work to register. When last time I was in the HTK archives, the registry was some DOS 6.0 based database program on something that resembled a 486 or an early 586. Do you even know what these things were? It illustrates the situation nicely - the online records are far from perfect, or accessible.

So if you think that it's just a case of browsing through the online archives, you will be disappointed. Some times questions like this just solve themselves in time.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi Kurfürst, I have some questions about the "Australian document".

The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF. McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

Is the reason why it is included specifically stated in the document or is this a interpretation?
How do you know that the listed persons quoted from the report, where can these quotes be found?

Is the following quoted text a summary/interpretation by Pips or is this a actual quote of the document?

"The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

I never heard of a initial limitation of +9 boost and you just mentioned that this was already discussed. Can you give me a link to this discussion or source?

[Glider]

Your playing your game again Kurfurst only quoting one paper from a complete stream. However you believe that certain means 25%, so prove it. All you need to do is look at the strength of FC compare it to the combat reports/squadron records and you will have your 25%.

Pips clearly states
Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place
We know the War Cabinet didn't make those decisions so find out who did, simple request.

The other core to the Pips position is that there was a shortage of 100 Octane which caused the decision he believes the War Cabinet made. I ask you to find any reference to any paper from any official source that states that there was a shortage of 100 Octane for FC in 1940.