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

[Al Schlageter]

Knocks the air out of Eugene's argument of 16 squadrons.

"By July 31 1940, there 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using 100 octane fuel."

Pity the article doesn't mention the number of Hurricanes using 100 octane fuel.

[JG52Uther]

Obviously a contentious issue. Saying that, if you can't show a little respect to each other the thread might have to be locked, which is a shame.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
It is a shame that you concentrate on throwing accusations around but don't reply to any questions or supply any evidence.
Whatever you may think I have always supplied papers to support my positions, and often one will support another. The papers are often copies of originals from the NA and are complete. I do not rely on unsubstantiated postings as being the definitive line, neither do I ignore the other persons view. If there is a contridiction I try to find the more accurate path.
Wherever possible I give access to everyone the links and encourage them to make up their own minds examples include the pilots notes and the War Cabinet Minutes.

I do not claim to have a perfect case, but a strong one whereas yours is at best weak supported mainly by bluster.

I stand by my case and the evidence put forward to support it.

Your case stands on two main items,
1) the pre war objective of 16 fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons
2) Pips posting,

All I and others have asked is for you to support any part of Pips posting not even all of it with some documentation, some official record. On the 16 + 2 supply anything that shows that the roll out of 100 Octane was limited to the 16 + 2.
Tragically we are still awaiting your evidence to support anything, anything at all and all you can turn to is bluster and accusation.

As I said I stand by my case, am happy to let the evidence support it and let people decide on the evidence for and against the use of 100 Octane

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Kurfurst
It is a shame that you concentrate on throwing accusations around but don't reply to any questions or supply any evidence.

If that's true you were talking to yourself in the last 750 + posts. Interesting.

I do not claim to have a perfect case, but a strong one whereas yours is at best weak supported mainly by bluster.

Actually, you only have rhetoric like the above.

I stand by my case and the evidence put forward to support it.

Well let's see it. Do you have a paper saying 100 octane is to be/was introduced to all Squadrons? No.

Your case stands on two main items,
1) the pre war objective of 16 fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons.
2) Pips posting,

It's rather dishonest to constantly try to misrepresent other people's positions, for lack of proof on your own point.

You dismiss 1 by claiming it was changed, but have presented no evidence of any change intended.

You dismiss 2 by the arguement that you have not seen the papers yourself, called a researcher a liar and a fraud, yet I have asked perhaps a hundred times to see the meeting file in its completeness, and not the cropped version you deem fitting to share. You never answered that, and refused to show the whole file to anyone even if its not a problematic at all. You stick to showing only select papers from it. I think it speaks for itself.

3, Morgan and Shacklady. You dismiss them for god-knows-what reason.

4, Your own papers of the May 1940 and previous meetings all which say 100 octane was issued only to select units. You dismiss that as 'a typo in the document'. Sure, right, if the papers don't say what you say, the papers are in error, not you.

5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.

6, Spitfire manuals noting both 87 and 100 octane limits at the time. You dismiss them with the weird argument that despite the manual is clearly marked June 1940, it refers to Spitfire variant which according to you, was already withdrawn from service and sent to training units where it supposedly used 87 octane (no evidence presented) before it even entered service...(!).

7, ... and the very fact that the small circle of die-hard RAF fans who are claiming that 100 octane was the only fuel used operationally were completely unable to show ANY kind of evidence for it in 10 years of desperate and fruitless research.

All which are in perfect agreement and logically follow each other and do not need the mountain of 'explaining', twisting and dismissal which you seem to rely on when the documentary evidence do not support your case.

Tragically we are still awaiting your evidence to support anything, anything at all and all you can turn to is bluster and accusation.

IMHO what is tragic is that you actually believe that you can sell this silliness and expect people suddenly forget about the whole thread and what was posted. Like I said, if I supposedly haven't supplied 'anything at all', what were you posting about in the last 700 post...? What were you trying to dismiss so desperately?

As I said I stand by my case, am happy to let the evidence support it and let people decide on the evidence for and against the use of 100 Octane

They have already decided against your claims, as did the developers. So now you change the argument, and say that you are arguing for the use of 100 octane - a fact everybody knows for 70 years and agrees with - from your original obscenely silly claim that each and every operational sortie, unit and station was using 100 octane fuel, and not a single one used 87 octane, ever, so the developers just got everything wrong, and this sim should only represent the best and most potent plane variants the RAF had in 1940, and all lesser variants should be removed, mission designers, server should not be able to decide for themselves, whether they buy your story or not, it needs to be enforced on them.

In your world, it happened overnight, universally, by the touch of a magic wand, and in complete secrecy which is why there's no written trace of it.

So why should I or anyone waste any more time on you, tell me? You're unable to give a convincing case, behave like a fanatic, and do not even present an intellectual challenge or interesting evidence. You merely repeat the same over and over again, try to win the debate by having the last word, and when people got bored with it, you call them out like a child..

So present your evidence or just don't expect me to be bothered by this ruckus.

[Glider]

Check posting 697

[Kurfürst]

I checked it, its incoherent nonsense IMO.

Now answer the question why every paper speaks of select squadrons, and none of all squadrons, thank you.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
My case is outlined in the posts 681/682 that cover my belief in the definition of the words select. It shows the development path of the process. I recognise that you will never agree with me or I with you but that isn't important.
What is important is that third parties see the arguments and evidence for both and are able to make up their own mind.

All I am asking you again is to support or even define your case. You believe that select is a limited number that is clear, but what you believe that number to be we don't know. Is it the 16 + 2, is it the 30+ squadrons we have combat records for, is it something between the two, is it simply less than 100% of fighter the squadrons? Tell us what is your belief

So lets start with something simple:-

a) How many RAF fighter squadrons do you belive used 100 Octane in the BOB?
b) How do you support that view?

[Ernst]

I am watching the posts. My personal conclusion is:

For sure the 100 octane was present. But to me there is no evidence that the all fighters used 100 octane. How many is difficult to say.

If i was the developer i ll model the 100 octane, 87 octane, and C-3 for the Germans and let the mapmakers decide.

Obviously 100 octane was not a panacea and not one of the main reasons for the Luftwaffe failure. The battle was fierce and the acs were very well matched. RAF loses were great even with the 109s and Luftwaffe operating in the limits of its logistics and radius. In other scenarios the Spits were not so succesfull.

[Al Schlageter]

5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.

What evidence have you supplied Barbi that the numbers for 87 fuel are only for Fighter Command?

[Glider]

Evidence re use in Other Commands, permisson given 7th August.