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

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

It should do and as mentioned in the posting I am going to see what I can find. The one area that I have not been able to identify is a level below the Oil Committee. There should be someone somewhere who was responsible for implementing the change, they were too senior.

The Holy Grail is some form of status report that mght say stations A have ben equipped, stations B are being equipped and stations C will be done by such and such a date.

That would finish it off once and for all

Good luck!
I'm interested to see what you can find.

[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.

[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.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

This is the core of the issue and reason for my posting, people have the right to expect that what they had in 1940 is what they have in the FS.

I firmly believe that the RAF had the 100 Octane and that the evidenc shows it. However in the various threads in the WW2 website where aircraft are discussed my choice for the BOB period is the Me109 not the Spitfire

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

That will never happen, not when the document proofs him wrong or let the Luftwaffe be seen in a not so glorious light like he does.

Originally Posted by winny

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.

me too.

Originally Posted by winny

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.

+100

Originally Posted by winny

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

Kurfürst and facts against the Luftwaffe?
No way! This is a contradiction in terms!

[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