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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Kurfurst
Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

You are welcome. Now, normal conversation is much more enjoyable, isn't it.. I hope we can keep it that way. I did add a couple of others in the meantime.

As far as I go, I see no problem. In March 1939 they decided that 100 octane will be issued to 16+2 Sqns, ie. a portion of FC and BC. They said the process shall start in the end of 1939, and indeed it did.

In short I do not see a single point that would show that they were doing anything else then (rather slowly) executing the plan according to the March 1939 plan.

We are of course talking about decisions taken in 1940 so whilst they are interesting in a historical way, they are out of date. No long term plan of any kind in any nation goes unchanged once the bullets start flying, as priorities change.

That would be a perfectly logical conclusion, a clausula rebus sic stantibus. However you can't simply assume this must have, and did happened. If they revised the pre-war plans, there should be documentation of it. Find it, present it, and I will believe your thesis immidiately.

I take it you agree that Pips posting doesn't count as a source.

No, I don't agree. It isn't a source in a way that we do not have scans of the original papers, on the other hand I have absolutely no reason to believe Pips would misreport his findings, and also his comments agree completely with what we found so far. I see no reason to doubt it.

If the pre-war plans were revised, I tend to believe this happened after May 1940. The 7th meeting etc. is clear that they supplied 100 octane to a number of FC/BC Stations/Squadrons, but not all.

That's why it would be interesting to look at the complete file, esp. the post May 1940 happenings to see when the original limited introduction of 100 octane was revised. The consumption figures between May - November 1940 do not lie: the 100 octane issues were practically the same in mid-May and mid-August, the height of activity, as long until the end of September indiciating that there was no expansion in the scale of use until late September, also shown by the sudden drop of 87 octane issues.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

You sound like a religious fanatic, Seadog.. do you think that repeating the same and always having the last word is convincing? Let me tell you, it isn't.

"No one has presented a shred of evidence that even one RAFFC operational Merlin engined fighter squadron used anything but 100% 100 octane during the Battle of Britain."

You keep producing documents from well before the BofB, yet you can't produce a single document showing that even one operational Merlin engined fighter squadron was using 87 octane during the battle. There are literally hundreds of books that cover this subject, thousands of magazine, newspaper and journal articles, and yet not one states that a BofB Merlin engined fighter squadron used 87 octane operationally, yet despite this lack of evidence you persist with missionary zeal to try to win converts...and your behaviour is the mark of the true fanatic.

[Crumpp]

Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

The Summary of the Seventh meeting is dated 18 May 1940.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Summary of the Seventh meeting is dated 18 May 1940.

I have to agree that your eyesight is spot on.

Kurfursts posting 176 was timed at 1.26pm, my reply posting 177 was timed at 1.41pm, Kurfursts posting 176 was amended at 1.44pm. I noticed the change and made another posting 178 to cater for the additional documents at 1.55pm
The postings crossed something Kurfurst noted in his posting 179 when commented ‘I did add a couple of others in the meantime.’

I hope that clarifies the position, just a co incidence.

I did send you a PM earlier about the references to sides in a posting that I didn’t understand. Can I ask you to clarify that for me please, in case I have misunderstood something.

Thanking you in advance

[Blackdog_kt]

As a by-stander in this with no real gameplay gains from the final verdict (i will fly pretty much everything, both sides of the sim), the way the whole thing reads to me is:


1) Fuel was the "property" of stations/airfields, not specific units.

2) Critical airfields received supplies of 100 octane fuel.

3) Units rotated between different airfields as operational needs dictated.

4) When a certain unit happened to operate from a field with 100 octane supplies they would use it, when operating from another field they would not.

5) This also explains why there are a lot of combat reports from different units mentioning the use of +12lbs boost.

I certainly can't believe they would be moving all their fuel supply with them whenever they changed stations

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Can you clear up the ambiguity, please?

Crumpp
I believe I have done in my posting 150. Two papers are posted, the first item 9 in the summary of conclusions of the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee. This paper clearly and without any limitation says that the ACAS has requested that squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims should begin to use 100 Octane

The second paper May 1940 which is for the Summary of actions for the 6th Meeting of the Oil Committee is the one that contains the magic Certain word. This paper specifically refers to item 9 of the Summary of the Conclusions of the 5th Meeting so it is clear that it is refering to the previous paper.

As I have said before I don't know why he said certain, but I do know that the first paper was clear and that the request was without limitation.
I am pretty sure that the Oil Committee largely staffed by Air Force Officers wouldn't overide the Chief of the Air Staff without some explanation.
I once worked for the Company Secretary of an Insurance Company and normal practice if the action had changed would be to document the change in the papers for the next meeting. Otherwise people would not know what actions to take or what the Oil Committee are expected to do or be responsible for.
Can I guarantee that they didn't follow standard practice, no I cannot, but Civil Service bodies all over the world love paperwork and the chances are very slim.

If people believe that Certain means a limit of some kind then I believe that they need to try and identify what that limit is and not make assumptions. I looked into it and the only link I found was to the first paper which is unambigious.

I repost the papers for you

Hope this helps