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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Indeed. There are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the Spitfire I was equipped with only four machine guns. I think we should 'correct' the current error in the sim that it has eight..

Name one
.

That is a lie. Excerpts from Spitfire the History, by far the most reliable Spitfire source was posted and it says that there were supply problems due to tanker sinkings by U boots..

It was a concern of course it was losses were serious but more got through than were sunk and in the May to August period stocks still rose.

.

Again, lies.

The paper is not riddled with errors.
It is supported by your own documentation
- 18 May 1940 paper showing only select units using 100 octane,
- fuel consumption papers showing large scale conversion did not start until late September,
- early operating Limits of Merlin III XII (+9 except for take off)
Pips seen it and gave reference to it.
The archieves recognise the paper, they have told you loud and clear that you have not asked for the paper with proper description.

So stop lying. Its showing desperation and dishonesty..

-The paper 18th may is in direct responce to an unabigious request from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units. I believe that the reference to certain is the stations to be stocked with 100 octane in the first instance. If you believe otherwise provide some documentation, its a simple request and one that you would insist on.
- The Fuel consuption figures do show an increase in 100 octane in September. This is due to the Other commands starting to transfer from 87 Octane to 100 Octane after permission was given in August for which documentation evidence was provided. If you believe otherwise provide your evidence.
-The Archives did not recognise the paper when I asked for it, they did not recognise the paper when the Wiki editors asked for it and last I heard from you, you have NEVER asked for it. All you need to do therefore is ask for it and post it when you find it. You know I can provide evidence for all these requests so once again, provide some evidence to support your statement.
- If Pips has seen it then please provide some evience as no one else has seen it.

You said it rightly - it is your belief.

Correct it is and my belief is supported by documentation. All we are asking is for you to provide your documentation to support your belief

a, It actually say 18 + 2 Squadrons, until September 1940. Also that 800 000 tons of reserves need to be accumulated. In spring 1940 there were but 220 000 tons accumulated. Target was not met, period.
b, The document you speak of is a simply assessement of requirement. It mentions 21 Stations (out of ca. 60 operational in BoB).
Can you explain how these 21 Stations of December 1939 magically got 60 by July 1940? You have absolutely no evidence to that, in fact, you haven't find anything to prove your thesis.
c, It doesn't mention anywhere 'without limitation'. This is simply made up by you.
d, Given the lenght of discussion attached to it, you simply lie that the word certain only appeared in early 1940. It was present in all documents dealing with the subject. I've dealt with this in my earlier post, you've seen it, so stop lying.
e, You've got that right. Question arises though - if FC command did not even get the basics yet in spring of 1940, how would they plan for complete changeover - of which there's no sign yet in the papers..
f, All that was done by May is noting that select units were cleared for 100 octane used. You have admitted that nothing changed afterwards, it remained in use with select units.
g, Fuel consumption papers show the actual conversion process did not start until late September 1940.

a It does say 18 plus 2 but this is a pre war plan which also asy that the number of squadrons can be amended depending on the fuel available. War changes priorities and the Target of 800,000 tons was never met at any time during the war but it didn't stop us using this and other fuels.
b The document is more than an assesment. It is a clear statemnt that the oerational stations were to be treated as a first tranch and a second set of non operational stations were to be treated as a second tranch. Hence my belief that in the paper when the magic certain word was used it refered to the first tranch.
What we don't know is how many other stations were equipped in the roll out, was it the 21 or was it all the operational stations. What we do know is that in May squadrons in France who do not appear on the list were equiped with 100 Octane and in Norway so its my belief that the fuel was issued as a normal supply item. If not can you explain why these units were equipped?
c The Request from the Chief of the Air Staff was for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 Octane. It didn't say some, or certain, or by station, squadron or Group. It was a blanket request without limitation.
d My posting 177 and 178 deal with this question
e I agree that the confusion was unexpected but the paper trail shows that the issue was adressed and the roll out didn't slow down while the discussion was underway
f I admit that the supply was to all the units in the first tranch. As I said in (B) we know that additional units were issued with 100 Octane such as those in France and Norway. Its my belief that all operation stations had the 100 Octane and its mprobable that by the time July August arrived those in Tranch 2 the non operational units would have been stocked but cannot prove that to be the case.
g Fuel Consupmtion paper prove that in September the use of 100 Octane fuel increased as the other operational commands started to use 100 Octane. They also prove that for June to August approx 10,000 tons a month were being used up. Have you tried to work out how many flights those 125 aircraft mentioned by Pips would have to do to get through 10,000 tons a month?
Have you anything to support the 125 aircraft figure

You have misquoted several papers as shown above and left out conviniently parts that did not fit your thesis.

Name them, simple request and I will post them. Also supply information that supports your theory another simple request

There is a case for select units being equipped in May 1940 with 100 octane fuel. There is no evidence for anything more.

YOU CANNOT DANCE AROUND THAT FACT, I am sorry.

I haven't tried to. The select being the 21 stations to be equipped in the first instance plus the ones that we know were equipped such as France and Norway.
Its my belief that the other operational stations would also have been equipped but recognise that I don't have any paper to support that. Just the indication that if the Operational stations in France were equipped in May I find it hard to believe that the other operational units in UK wouldn't have been.

You keep asking that question, you keep answer, then you keep asking again. Who are you trying to bull here? Do you think if you ask the same question, all the uneasy evidence that were posted will just go away? Do you think that if you resort to Goebbels like tactics, repeating the same falsehood again and again, people will believe what you say? Is that the idea, David?

Can we say the complete file of these meetings, David? Why are you holding them back so fiercely? I think this is the best question in thread.

You have what I have and nothing is being held back, nothing. The only question I have asked you is to supply anything that supports your comments which is reasionable as you demand a lot from others.

With luck I aim to get to the NA next week. Tell me which meeing you want and I will copy everything for that meeting. The notes for the meeting, the meeting notes, actions arising and any additional papers. The same goes for the War Committee meeting. Name which meeting you want and I will copy everything, I am not going to copy all the notes for all the meetings.
I cannot be fairer than that.

In return you get a copy of the Pips papers how does that sound?

Let me summarize what you have posted so far.

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

Some obvious points on this.
Select fighter stations are as a minimum the first tranch 21 stations plus those we know were equipped France and Norway
Select Bomber equals all Blenheim units in No 2 Group posting 122 and 134 cover this
Pips hasn't showed anything. Its an unsubstantiated posting and the reason for his statment doesn't hold water
Its all operational aircraft in all commands not the rest of fighter command

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Name one
.
It was a concern of course it was losses were serious but more got through than were sunk and in the May to August period stocks still rose.

.
-The paper 18th may is in direct responce to an unabigious request from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units. I believe that the reference to certain is the stations to be stocked with 100 octane in the first instance. If you believe otherwise provide some documentation, its a simple request and one that you would insist on.
- The Fuel consuption figures do show an increase in 100 octane in September. This is due to the Other commands starting to transfer from 87 Octane to 100 Octane after permission was given in August for which documentation evidence was provided. If you believe otherwise provide your evidence.
-The Archives did not recoginse the paper when I asked for it, they did not recognise the paper when the Wiki editors asked for it and last I heard from you, you have NEVER asked for it. All you need to do therefore is ask for it and post it when you find it. You know I can provide evidence for all these requests so once again, provide some evidence to support your statement.
- If Pips has seen it then please provide some evience as no one else has seen it.
Correct it is and my belief is supported by documentation. All we are asking is for you to provide your documentation to support your belief

a It does say 18 plus 2 but this is a pre war plan which also asy that the number of squadrons can be amended depending on the fuel available. War changes priorities and the Target of 800,000 tons was never met at any time during the war but it didn't stop us using this and other fuels.
b The document is more than an assesment. It is a clear statemnt that the oerational stations were to be treated as a first tranch and a second set of non operational stations were to be treated as a second tranch. Hence my belief that in the paper when the magic certain word was used it refered to the first tranch.
What we don't know is how many other stations were equipped in the roll out, was it the 21 or was it all the operational stations. What we do know is that in May squadrons in France who do not appear on the list were equiped with 100 Octane and in Norway so its my belief that the fuel was issued as a normal supply item. If not can you explain why these units were equipped?
c The Request from the Chief of the Air Staff was for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 Octane. It didn't say some, or certain, or by station, squadron or Group. It was a blanket request without limitation.
d My posting 177 and 178 deal with this question
e I agree that the confusion was unexpected but the paper trail shows that the issue was adressed and the roll out didn't slow down while the discussion was underway
f I admit that the supply was to all the units in the first tranch. As I said in (B) we know that additional units were issued with 100 Octane such as those in France and Norway. Its my belief that all operation stations had the 100 Octane and its mprobable that by the time July August arrived those in Tranch 2 the non operational units would have been stocked but cannot prove that to be the case.
g Fuel Consupmtion paper prove that in September the use of 100 Octane fuel increased as the other operational commands started to use 100 Octane. They also prove that for June to August approx 10,000 tons a month were being used up. Have you tried to work out how many flights those 125 aircraft mentioned by Pips would have to do to get through 10,000 tons a month?
Have you anything to support the 125 aircraft figure


Name them, simple request and I will post them. Also supply information that supports your theory another simple request




I haven't tried to. The select being the 21 stations to be equipped in the first instance plus the ones that we know were equipped such as France and Norway.
Its my belief that the other operational stations would also have been equipped but recognise that I don't have any paper to support that. Just the indication that if the Operational stations in France were equipped in May I find it hard to believe that the other operational units in UK wouldn't have been.




You have what I have and nothing is being held back, nothing. The only question I have asked you is to supply anything that supports your comments which is reasionable as you demand a lot from others.

With luck I aim to get to the NA next week. Tell me which meeing you want and I will copy everything for that meeting. The notes for the meeting, the meeting notes, actions arising and any additional papers. The same goes for the War Committee meeting. Name which meeting you want and I will copy everything, I am not going to copy all the notes for all the meetings.
I cannot be fairer than that.

In return you get a copy of the Pips papers how does that sound?

Some obvious points on this.
Select fighter stations are as a minimum the first tranch 21 stations plus those we know were equipped France and Norway
Select Bomber equals all Blenheim units in No 2 Group posting 122 and 134 cover this
Pips hasn't showed anything. Its an unsubstantiated posting and the reason for his statment doesn't hold water
Its all operational aircraft in all commands not the rest of fighter command

Interesting, that 21 stations figure. That would mean the majority of squadrons were converted as a lot of squadrons had a home base and a forward base

Does the NA at Kew have squadron maintenence records? Campaign diaries?
I've enquired about combat reports from May '40 to September '40 but there are hundreds of them..

I've mentioned it before but does anyone know if the Merlin conversion was one way? ie. once converted it would not work on 87oct. The reluctance to convert until stocks were high enough would suggest that it was a one way conversion. Otherwise it wouldn't have mattered.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

Does the NA at Kew have squadron maintenence records? Campaign diaries?
I've enquired about combat reports from May '40 to September '40 but there are hundreds of them..
.

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

[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.