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

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

Some people, naming no names, just want to watch the world burn.

There you have it Orville. I'm now starting to wonder about the psychological makeup of such a character. He's an 'odd one out' for sure, even worthy of study.

What may seem strange is obviously perfectly normal for him, he cannot see just how ridiculous he looks to other people, otherwise he would learn and adjust his behaviour. This is perfectly apparent from years of agenda driven vandalism of historical information sites where the same mantra and irritation is driven against some of the most studious people to write on the internet. I conclude that asking him why he is like this and why we would be interested must seem strange to him, rather like other people being very interested in what I had for breakfast this morning - it wouldn't make sense would it?

[winny]

Just a quick post about the Trimpell oil refinery figure of 384 spits in 19 squadrons.

I have a copy of the order of battle for fighter command on 1st August 1940.

Guess how many operational spitfire squadrons are listed, in total, all sectors and groups..? Yep, 19.

So that says to me that, as I suspected.. All of fighter commands spitfire squadrons had been converted by the end of July. All of them.

Now somebody please debunk me.

Edit: if you want me to list them, and where they were stationed I will.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's not difficult to say, there are dozens of papers posted here listing operational squadrons.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this and suggest that you fly Luftwaffe. I'm guessing this based on your request for C3 (which frankly I have very limited knowledge of, other than, I gather, a tiny minority of aircraft were trying it out). Therefore I conclude that you would consider it to your advantage to have underperforming RAF to fight online. Fine, enjoy it. But if you could take off the flying hat and put on the historian hat, for a moment, and evaluate the documents posted (AND I MEAN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS) then you should be able to deduce that the RAF had it and used it on the front line for all fighting squadrons.

Fortunately I make maps for our server so I'll make sure that 100 is available if 1C can get around to finishing what they started.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by winny

Just a quick post about the Trimpell oil refinery figure of 384 spits in 19 squadrons.

I have a copy of the order of battle for fighter command on 1st August 1940.

Guess how many operational spitfire squadrons are listed, in total, all sectors and groups..? Yep, 19.

So that says to me that, as I suspected.. All of fighter commands spitfire squadrons had been converted by the end of July. All of them.

Now somebody please debunk me.

Edit: if you want me to list them, and where they were stationed I will.

Sometimes you do not need to prove what was done, but what wasn't done!

We have Kurfurst numbness to thank for a lot of this. Had it not been for his myopic granite stance you fine chaps wouldn't have pulled all of this info together in one place and thrashed out the situation via logic and elimination. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Spitfires had it then so did every Hurricane squadron too.

What would be wonderful is if you guys could get all of this together and publish it online as evidence because as long as 'he' has air in his lungs he will pollute history.

[Osprey]

lol, you only need read the first part, Kurfurst is quoting Dr Gavin Bailey as his source

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=161

But here's what Dr Bailey had to say about Kurfurst in September 2009.

"Kurfurst, this seems to be the third occasion when you have attempted to use my work to support a conclusion on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain which I have explicitly rejected. You have been asked, repeatedly, to desist. You cannot claim to be unaware of my views on the matter, having been confronted by them on a previous occasion when I challenged you on the misuse of my work on the forums of www.ww2aircraft.net.
Note my comments there on 31 January 2009.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html
...nothing in my work either can or should be used by people attempting to argue that 100-octane fuel was not in widespread use in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. That position is contradicted by a mass of original evidence cited in my work (and elsewhere). The next time anyody attempts to produce carefully-selected references from my work to contradict the historical use of 100-octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain, please refer them back to my original article which if nothing else should provide them with sufficient primary source evidence to disabuse them of that notion.
I also refer you to my post of 7 February 2009, which concludes;
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...b-16305-4.html
My thesis, if this requires further clarification after my original posting on this forum, is that 100-octane fuel was supplied from a diversity of sources within and outside the US (in contrast to the received wisdom), but also was in widespread use during the Battle of Britain, as a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence demonstrates (in conformity with the received wisdom). Yes, you have quoted one decision mentioned in my article about the planned use of 100-octane fuel in selected squadrons in 1939. However you then ignore the text and references which then indicate that this decision was overtaken by others. Highlighting that first decision without exploring the subsequent changes to it is either mistaken or dishonest. If you cite my work again, I would ask you to make it clear that I have explictly and publically disagreed with your revisionist appreciaton of the use of 100-octane in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.
Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.
Gavin Bailey"

[41Sqn_Banks]

I don't think further discrediting is needed, this will only get the thread locked and it doesn't provide any new information/proof/evidence on the subject.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It's not difficult to say, there are dozens of papers posted here listing operational squadrons.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this and suggest that you fly Luftwaffe. I'm guessing this based on your request for C3 (which frankly I have very limited knowledge of, other than, I gather, a tiny minority of aircraft were trying it out). Therefore I conclude that you would consider it to your advantage to have underperforming RAF to fight online. Fine, enjoy it. But if you could take off the flying hat and put on the historian hat, for a moment, and evaluate the documents posted (AND I MEAN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS) then you should be able to deduce that the RAF had it and used it on the front line for all fighting squadrons.

Fortunately I make maps for our server so I'll make sure that 100 is available if 1C can get around to finishing what they started.

Yes i fly the Luftwaffe. And even with this 100 octane is possible to perform very good against any Spitfire since i would fly within the performance envelope of the 109. Above the 5000m the 100 octane advantage was lost. I simply have to fly in my terms and fly higher were the 109 was better. And engage and disengage at high speeds.

One of the articles posted above to prove the 100 octane use also says that since the most of the air fighting in BoB was above the 4000m the 100 octane were not a panacea, and any advantage were minimized or lost.

Put what UFO do you want in you server they ll go earth in flames. My pleasure will be higher in disapointing the overconfident spitfire pilots. The 109s difficulties acctualy is because the pilots are trying to counter the spits lower than 4000m or even in deck.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Dr Bailey on Kurfurst

Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Yes i fly the Luftwaffe. And even with this 100 octane is possible to perform very good against any Spitfire since i would fly within the performance envelope of the 109. Above the 5000m the 100 octane advantage was lost. I simply have to fly in my terms and fly higher were the 109 was better. And engage and disengage at high speeds.

This is very true, the 100 octane fuel, even if modelled correctly (whatever that means) in the sim will not cause any revolution in flying, it certainly won't make RAF crates fly like rockets. I find this thread most amusing in many ways and I appreciate the mix of hilarious humour of certain Hungarian posters, and useful information.

Originally Posted by Ernst

Put what UFO do you want in you server they ll go earth in flames. My pleasure will be higher in disapointing the overconfident spitfire pilots. The 109s difficulties acctualy is because the pilots are trying to counter the spits lower than 4000m or even in deck.

This part I can't agree with I am afraid. In the sim as it is, the 109 is very much superior to any Mk.I RAF fighter in terms of speed and especially climb rate, which is most useful in dogfight. Even as a good RAF pilot you would be struggling against well flown Emils. Once he goes vertical he can do whatever he likes with you and you will have to make him make some mistake in order to succeed. Especially so down low. If you get higher up though, cards are turning around 15-16k and above that you've got good chance of outflying the 109. That's why I believe many 109 pilots prefer to counter the RAF on low altitudes and keep doing so with great success. Things are quite different higher up provided you know what you're doing.

There won't be no dissapointment if I get shot down as a Spitfire Mk.Ia pilot as I know I am pulling the shorter straw with my a/c performance and I must compensate with skill and often with luck in order to succeed. I assure you that with your tactics as you describe it, any skilled RAF pilot would not let himself shot down so easily unless outnumbered by several 109s and I certainly would like to see myself going 'down in flames' when I meet you up in 20k where I usually loiter. You'd be lucky to make it back to France in one piece (probably saving yourself in a dive with quite a few .303 vent holes). Same situation in 5000k, I'd be lucky to make it home.

I understand though what you're point is - it's the tactics in the first place and with that I agree.

[Glider]

The interesting thing is that when flying in the BOB, I prefer the 109.

However as we all know, the unique situation in this period, is that seldom in air combat have the two planes been so well matched. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages but victory normally goes to the pilot who grabs the opportunity and / or has the tactical advantage.