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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

My personal belief is the RAF operated 16 squadrons on the fuel as that is what our facts say. No need to build a house of cards based on crude, one-dimensional, speculation and factual error.

You are of course free to believe what you like but you cannot claim any facts, for instance.

a) You do not know which squadrons
b) You do not know which stations
c) You do not know how it was to be distributed
d) You do know the roll out schedule,
e) You do not even know if the schedule was kept at 16 fighter squadrons as the last para states that this is subject to change.

Now if you can prove any of the above, you might have a case as without any proof you do not have any facts

Can you list the facts you do have.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Glider

You are of course free to believe what you like but you cannot claim any facts, for instance.

a) You do not know which squadrons
b) You do not know which stations
c) You do not know how it was to be distributed
d) You do know the roll out schedule,
e) You do not even know if the schedule was kept at 16 fighter squadrons as the last para states that this is subject to change.

Now if you can prove any of the above, you might have a case as without any proof you do not have any facts

Can you list the facts you do have.

Indeed. The 16+2 squadrons were planed, and we don't have a document that proofs that the numbers of the plan were reached, not reached or even exceeded.
Of course we have the combat reports that show way more squadrons. Remains the "rotation theory" but this is clearly wrong. There are combat reports of 41 Squadron that proof the use of 100 octane fuel during their time in Hornchurch (11 Group) and few days later when they were back in Catterick (13 Group).

[Al Schlageter]

Now, now Banks stop providing facts that will be ignored by Eugene. He has ignored them before, so why do you think he will not ignore them again.

[Sturm_Williger]

Well, this thread is both quite interesting and yet also rather demented in its last 50 pages or so.

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :
100 octane fuel was used by ( a substantial number of/a lot of/quite a few ) Fighter Squadrons.
87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Therefore the ideal solution would be for the Devs to model both and allow Mission-builders to determine airfield availability.

Isn't this what most (all ? ) of us would prefer to see ?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger

Well, this thread is both quite interesting and yet also rather demented in its last 50 pages or so.

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :
100 octane fuel was used by ( a substantial number of/a lot of/quite a few ) Fighter Squadrons.
87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Therefore the ideal solution would be for the Devs to model both and allow Mission-builders to determine airfield availability.

Isn't this what most (all ? ) of us would prefer to see ?

Demented? Considering that those with little or no evidence to prove their case -
ie: that the RAF only allowed 1/3rd to 1/2 of the frontline fighter squadrons (Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant) to use 100 Octane fuel -
were hiding their lack of evidence behind a smokescreen of bluster, red-herrings and diversions "...a tale told by an Idiot, full of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing."

while demanding 100% iron-clad proof, down to the last crossed t and dotted i, that the RAF allowed all front-line fighter units to use 100 Octane fuel throughout the B of B - things got a little...demented.

Apart from anything else the amount of 100 Octane fuel issued and consumed, versus the amount needed to accomplish all of the frontline daylight sorties carried out by Fighter Command from July through October 1940, should be enough on its own to show that the probability that all front-line Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants used 100 Octane fuel throughout the battle, is extremely high.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Arthur Conan Doyle

[Glider]

I would agree with Sturm in that the developers will use both fuels and let the mission builders make the call. If the misson is over N Ireland then 100 octane wouldn't be needed anyway as there wouldn't be any 109's. If they insist on 87 octane in no 11 group then I can imagine what response they would get.

The reason I first joined the thread was to ensure that the misson builders were not limiting the RAF to 16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

[Crumpp]

16 squadrons as that was patently wrong.

Really? Based on what? So far we have two sources that both say 16 squadrons. On says on 31 July 16 squadrons were approved and the other that by sometime in September 16 squadrons were using the fuel.

The RAF maintained a very vigorous rotation schedule. You can see that in the OOB.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger

From all the arguments and counter-arguments posted, it seems clear that the following can be derived :

87 octane may have been used by ( a few/some ) Squadrons as well.

Actually this is the part that hasn't been proved, because there is no evidence of it whatsoever aside from a couple of training flights becoming embroiled on the odd occasion (listed by Glider). The problem is that one or two people have taken this lack of any evidence as reason enough that it was so widespread as not to be worth mentioning, anywhere, ever.


Aside from that I agree, modelling both would be best for very early war scenarios.