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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Why are you so "this is a lie" ? Surley you mean it's incorrect.

I do not mean his position. He has an opinion, which is may be inccorect, but he has the right to be believe it.

However if someone pretends he hadn't seen the posts in this (and other) threads and pretend they do not exist, and keep posting that has not seen anything, it is something different. He knows they exists, he is aware of the points taken in them.

To say that nothing was put forward when it was done is a lie intend to mislead those who did not read the thread, pure and simple. There's no reason to call this incorrect. To say for example that nothing proves that Pips was right about the late September 1940 conversion, when I have shown David the fuel deliveries at least three times now, showing exactly what Pips notes, and he quickly jumps over it and fails to comment, I will not say he is incorrect when he again starts saying the same thing again a few pages later like if nothing happened.

It would be a different matter if he would say he does not agree with my conclusions, but he keeps making these foggy references to "hundreds books" etc. David is in pure denial and now he is becoming desperate and starting to use underhand tactics instead of putting forward a good arguement, and good sources.

To put it blunt, all he does in the 20 or so pages is to threaten to developers that they will be considered donkeys if they do not follow his opinion, and post the same two papers in which he reads something that goes to directly against the meaning of the words on the paper. Apparantly that just about nobody agrees with his interpretation of the May 18 and previous papers, which clearly say select squadrons, this does not stop him from keeping saying he has seen nothing, and keep telling everyone nobody has managed to prove him wrong, imply to everyone that the Australian paper is a lie. At the same time he simply does not asnwer the questions put to him. That's desperate.

Originally Posted by winny

Combat reports mentioning 12lb and home station (therefore 100 octane must be present at station)

74 Squadron 24th May 1940 - Hornchurch & Manston - 100 octane
54 Squadron 25th May 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane
19 Squadron 26th May 1940 - Duxford - 100 octane
611 Squadron 2nd June 1940 - ? (Catterick?) or Duxford
610 Squadron 12th June 1940 - Biggin Hill - 100 octane
41 Squadron 19th June 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane

Looks like 4 stations must have had 100 octane in May/June (Keep in mind that these are just the combat reports I've found, need more)

No new squadrons appear till August when first new references to 12lb start to appear..
for 64, 603, 602 and 234 squadrons
In September more appear
152, 66, 72, 609, 222.

I haven't checked the stations for August / September, yet

Anyone know of any good BoB combat report sites?

Now this is GOOD analytical work! Check out the Grunch's post earlier, I think he did the same. Actually if you manage to finish this work, would you be as kind as sharing this collection in the same format? Ie. Sqn - date - base. I can look up the base if you give me the two other particulars.

I think this approach is the most useful, as this gives the best idea to identify 100 octane Stations. Ie. 74, 54 and 41 Sqns all reported 100 octane use, and all of them were at the time based in Hornchurch.