Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:40 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtyphoon View Post
Kurfurst can stick to the phrase "selected" as much as he likes - it is a purely provisional phrase in a pre-war plan, and the 16 + 2 squadrons was conditional based on fuel supply. This was all explained long ago but completely ignored by Kurfurst and Crumpp.
Nice lie. The very document you have just posted mentions select Spitfire and Hurricane units having been stocked with 100 octane. This document is from May 1940, it is not a pre-war plan, and there is no word of 16+2 Squadrons noted in March 1939, though it's quite clear that the same was carried through, as only a 2 or 3 Blenheim units were 'concerned', in the May 1940 document, same as the March 1939 document.

I guess that puts back your 'credibility' to the shelf it belongs. You were known for manipulating sources long ago on Wikipedia (if anyone doubts it see Minor's latest falsifying attempts on 109 related articles on Wiki), and you have carried this over to this board.

You have also lied when you have stated that the LW fuel reserves were lower than those of the RAF; again, according to the very sources you have posted, the LW aviation fuel reserves stood at around 680,000 tons, compared to about the 600,000 tons contained in Britain. The interesting part is how much more aviation fuel the Germans consumed compared to the British in the period - 80 to 100 000 tons per month.



BTW, you were claiming before and swore to the heavens that you will ignore me. Not a man of your word, are you?
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org

Last edited by Kurfürst; 05-07-2012 at 08:49 AM.
  #2  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:50 AM
Glider Glider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 441
Default

If this is true then someone needs to explain how 2 squadrons of Blenhiems were split between 4 stations of No 2 Group that were 100% stocked with 100 octane.
That same person needs to explain why if the basic premise was that 5/6ths of the fuel at the other No 2 Group bases was 100 Octane, why should they only use the 1/6th that was 87 octane for operations.
Finally that same person may want to explain to everyone why when he knows about these documents doesn't he ever, ever mention them.

And as an aside, that same person might want to let us know what his version of Select is and how he supports it?
  #3  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:31 AM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

Not withstanding that the Blenheim squadrons shared bases with fighter squadrons. Brian Kingcombe talks of his friendship and rapport 92 had with the Blenheim crews (610?) they shared with, how they helped turn the fighters around between sorties etc.
  #4  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:51 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Units concerned -
Means someone is not concerned, in otherwords it refers to a select group.

Quote:
concerned - involved in or affected by or having a claim to or share in; "a memorandum to those concerned"; "an enterprise in which three men are concerned"; "factors concerned in the rise and fall of epidemics"; "the interested parties met to discuss the business"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concerned

Quote:
Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply.
And here we have the units concerned......
  #5  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Glider Glider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply.
And here we have the units concerned......
Once again ignoring the later documents that contradict your theory


Which leaves us with the logistical questions which you have so far avoided. You have requently said that logistics are critical, something I agree, so I would expect you to have put some effort into looking at the logistical questions your theory raises. To do otherwise as you have said, is to be amaturish and lower the tone of the thread.

Putting the Logistical Hat on again its interesting to look at the Basic Logistical details we know for the two cases
For the roll out to FC we know
a) Who made the decision
b) That testing was complete in 1939
c) Which stations were to have it issued to IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
d) How it was to be rolled out
e) That the Oil Committee considered the roll out to be complete in May
Note - all the above is supported by official original records held in the NA

For the 16 FC squadrons + 2 Bomber squadrons
a) We don't know who made the decision to continue with this program once war started
b) We don't know that phase IV testing was on going in 1940
c) We don't know which squadrons or which stations were supposed to have the 100 Octane
d) We don't know how it was to be rolled out
e) If this theory is correct, We don't know when the rest of FC had 100 Octane issued
f) We do know that the limit of 2 squadrons of Bombers mentioned in this paper was disregarded, which must question why the fighter limit is supposed to be maintained
None of these is supported by original papers. The best that can be said is that they depend on wild interpretations of some documents while ignoring others

As I said at the start the case for 100% roll out isn't perfect, but its a lot stronger than the case for 16 Fighter squadrons and 2 bomber squadrons



PS I don't expect a reply to these questions but it highlights that you cannot support your theory and whilst you may disagree with what I put forward, I do at least try to support my belief with documents not theories.
-----------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Glider; 05-07-2012 at 02:44 PM.
  #6  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:51 AM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

@ Kurfurst, here we go again with the "lie" thing. It's such a give away as to your mindset.

Oh, and on the subject of credibility.. You have to be joking, right?

Wikipedia... You've got the cheek to accuse someone else of doing exactly what you've been banned from wiki for doing? Hypocrite.

Stick to facts.
  #7  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?

I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! )

Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference.

Cheers!
  #8  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:17 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger View Post
So I guess the only real question is, since the patch has come out is the Spitfire and Hurricane performance in the sim closer to their real life non-virtual selves?

I'ld like to do some tests, but since the patch has been released I'm getting launcher errors! )

Just reinstalling the sim to se if it makes any difference.

Cheers!

Sadly no, even on 87 octane figures the Spits are 50 MPH too slow at sea level and no better at altitude, haven't really tested the hurri.
__________________


Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
  #9  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:29 PM
41Sqn_Banks 41Sqn_Banks is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 644
Default

I just came across the Blenheim IV Pilot's Notes from September 1939 and according to this the outer fuel tanks are restricted to 100 octane fuel and inner fuel tanks to 87 octane fuel.
  #10  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:29 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Nice lie. The very document you have just posted mentions select Spitfire and Hurricane units having been stocked with 100 octane. This document is from May 1940, it is not a pre-war plan
Read the 18 May paper again Barbi; not a mention of "select" units it says the "...fact that Units concerned -ie; Hurricane & Spitfire units - had been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Paragraph 8 on the March 1939 paper (your favourite) makes the 16 + 2 squadrons by September 1940 conditional, based on supply. You can call people "liar" all you like - the only one lying is your good self.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 18may40-100octane.jpg (211.6 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg 100octane Mar 1939 web.jpg (1.39 MB, 2 views)

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-07-2012 at 10:56 AM.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.