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

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Mike (this time using the handle lane) already knows that for years, in fact he has seen the papers showing the early rating of +9 for All out level, but hey, he was never afraid of posting manipulating BS in order to push an agenda under various new logins..

Now this is really hilarious by someone who is well known for doing such.

A prime example of Barbi's manipulating BS is the graph he posted on the issuing of fuel. First off, he doesn't give a source for the data points he plotted on his graph. Secondly, the fuel issuing was for the whole RAF, not for FC.

To see the double standard of proof used by Barbi one only has to look at his 1.98ata boost for the K-4. He even goes on and suggests that other units besides the 4 Gruppen converted to 1.98ata.

There should be no question that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use by RAF FC during the BoB if one uses Barbi's logic for the widespread use of 1.98ata boost by the 109s.

[Kurfürst]

Who says 1,98ata was in widespread use? It seems it was in use in four or five Gruppen. Possibly more, but nobody is getting a heart attack over the question, just a few RAF zealots that bite into a citrus over 100 octane.. but these same guys even question that MW-50 was in use, so why would anyone concern himself with such people?

[winny]

My reservations about 'certain stations' are that it's very vague, and unless it can be quantified it's pretty mute. 3, 4 or 5, or 10, 11 or 12..?

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)
August is where it seems to get busy..

Which slightly counters Kurfursts claim that the roll-out of 100 octane didn't happen till September.. Some were obviously converted by the end of August

However September/October do seem to have way more 12lb combat reports (20+ squadrons) than all the other months.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

My reservations about 'certain stations' are that it's very vague, and unless it can be quantified it's pretty mute. 3, 4 or 5, or 10, 11 or 12..?

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)
August is where it seems to get busy..

Which slightly counters Kurfursts claim that the roll-out of 100 octane didn't happen till September.. Some were obviously converted by the end of August

However September/October do seem to have way more 12lb combat reports (20+ squadrons) than all the other months.

Try these

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

[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.