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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

FYI, a very good explanation was offered shortly after my last post.

41Sqn_Banks says:
I absolutely agree with you that the case is in no way clear. However IIRC there is proof by combat reports and official squadron diaries (ORBs) that more than 16 squadrons used 100 octane before September 1940. Of course this doesn't mean that all squadrons used it. And this could also be caused by rotating the squadrons between the different groups.

Clearly you do believe that this is a good explanation, so what exactly is your evidence? Without it this is just a fantasy.

My previous questions are still waiting a reply.

1) If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports.
2) If you believe that this was achieved by only 16 squadrons using it at any one time then you need to prove it.
3) If you beleive that a pre war plan stayed in force for 12 months without any change then ask yourself this question. Can you find any pre war plan, on any topic, in relation to any combat arm, of any nation that continued without alteration once the fighting started. Find one, this isn't it because we know that Blenhiem units were equipped with 100 octane in France and that alone was more than 2 squadrons.
4) There was no shortage of fuel at any time in the BOB. If you think there was a shortage, prove it. The only shortage I found was in May 1944 before the invasion.
5) All the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is?

[41Sqn_Banks]

To check the "only-16-squadrons-at-one-time-by-rotating" theory I did count the squadrons that were at one time in No. 11 Group.

July 10th 1940
Hurricane 13
Spitfire 5
Blenheim 3
Defiant 1
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-22.html

August 8th 1940
Hurricane 14.5 (No. 85 Squadron is listed twice as the two Flights were at different stations, No. 1 RCAF is operational on August 17th when No. 41 Squadron was already transferred back to No. 13 Group)
Spitfire 5.5 (No. 41 Squadron returned to No. 13 Group on August 9th)
Blenheim 2
Defiant 0
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-28.html

September 7th 1940
Hurricane 14
Spitfire 7
Blenheim 2
Defiant 0
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-44.html


If we assume that 16 squadrons operated on 100 octane at one time, by summing up the Spitfire, Hurricane and Defiant* squadrons in No. 11 Group we get:
July 10th: 19 Squadrons (84% on 100 octane)
August 8th: 20 Squadrons (80% on 100 octane)
September 7th: 21 Squadrons (76% on 100 octane)

*Blenheim only used 100 octane fuel for better take-off performance when heavy loaded, which was not required in Fighter Command as they didn't carry bombs.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

5) All the facts that I have posted on this have come from the official records in the National Archives. If that isn't good enough for you then tell me what is?

And all the facts from the National Archives say

- that the RAF decided in March 1939 to equip 16 fighter + 2 bomber Squadrons with 100 octane

- that in May 1940 they acknowledged that the fuel was delivered to select fighter and bomber squadrons

- that in August 1940 they decided that other Commands may use 100 fuel as well (which does not mean they did, they were authorized to do so)

- 100 octane vs 87 octane issues figures for 1940 all show that 87 octane was the primary fuel issued during the Battle, and 100 octane issues did not increase or took prominence until the day battle was pretty much over

Everything else is merely your speculation and wishful thinking about 'all' and 'every' unit using 100 octane, supported by no evidence as many has already told you. You can only offer mere rhetoric and nothing more.

Nobody else need to offer counter-evidence to your speculation, as you were not able to offer evidence to start with. The burden is proof is on you. You can't - I see you'd like to - escape from that fact I am afraid.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nobody else need to offer counter-evidence to your speculation, as you were not able to offer evidence to start with. The burden is proof is on you. You can't - I see you'd like to - escape from that fact I am afraid.

In other words what ever pitiful evidence Barbi thought he had, and has spent hours arguing over, even though he confessed to having only a very passing interest in the RAF

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

....Because I have only a very passing interest the RAF... Some times questions like this just solve themselves in time.

has been totally busted.

No Pips memo, which he has never seen in the first place;

Morgan and Shacklady busted; (pity I still like the book but some of their research lacks depth)

and his mere conjecture and wishful thinking over the words "certain" or "selected", written in memos that are 70 years old.

Not forgetting that Kf very recently did provide a document stating that the RAF actually considered it had adequate reserves of 100 octane fuel in November 1939.


All he can do is squeak "the burden of proof is on you" - and nobody but Kf has set that 'rule'. If that was really true everything Kf has posted, all of his bluster, all of his attempts to justify his position, has been, in the words of the bard "a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (MacBeth)

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

If you are engaged in a battle for survival, do you not think you would utilize every possible advantage you have whether or not there are "adequate" reserves on hand or not?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And all the facts from the National Archives say

- that the RAF decided in March 1939 to equip 16 fighter + 2 bomber Squadrons with 100 octane

- that in May 1940 they acknowledged that the fuel was delivered to select fighter and bomber squadrons

- that in August 1940 they decided that other Commands may use 100 fuel as well (which does not mean they did, they were authorized to do so)

- 100 octane vs 87 octane issues figures for 1940 all show that 87 octane was the primary fuel issued during the Battle, and 100 octane issues did not increase or took prominence until the day battle was pretty much over

Everything else is merely your speculation and wishful thinking about 'all' and 'every' unit using 100 octane, supported by no evidence as many has already told you. You can only offer mere rhetoric and nothing more.

Nobody else need to offer counter-evidence to your speculation, as you were not able to offer evidence to start with. The burden is proof is on you. You can't - I see you'd like to - escape from that fact I am afraid.

If you believe that the RAF only used 16 squadrons of fighters with 100 Octane until Sept 1940, then you need to explain why we have over 30 squadrons mentioning it in combat reports. I think that counts as counter evidence

[Korn]

Sorry to intervene in the middle of your sword fighting, but if the 100 Octane fuel use was generalized, why is it even mentioned in the combat reports? I really doubt the use of your regular-every-day-normal fuel warrants mentioning.

Just asking. Was any air force during the WW2 in the habbit of specifying what fuel they flew with unless it was something, i don't know, unusual?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Korn

Sorry to intervene in the middle of your sword fighting, but if the 100 Octane fuel use was generalized, why is it even mentioned in the combat reports? I really doubt the use of your regular-every-day-normal fuel warrants mentioning.

Just asking. Was any air force during the WW2 in the habbit of specifying what fuel they flew with unless it was something, i don't know, unusual?

The reason 100 octane fuel is mentioned in combat reports in 1940 is because pilots using the +12 boost generally had to describe the circumstances under which it was used - the fuel did not have to be mentioned specifically, but there was often an expression like "squeezed the tit" used, meaning the pilot had pushed the throttle lever forward through a wire placed across the gate, engaging the overboost which could only be used with 100 octane fuel. The pilot also had to report use of the boost to the squadron's mechanics who entered it into the engine log of the aircraft. Later versions of the Merlin were able to routinely use +12 boost without the five minute time limit set on its use with the Merlin II/III series.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Korn

Sorry to intervene in the middle of your sword fighting, but if the 100 Octane fuel use was generalized, why is it even mentioned in the combat reports? I really doubt the use of your regular-every-day-normal fuel warrants mentioning.

Just asking. Was any air force during the WW2 in the habbit of specifying what fuel they flew with unless it was something, i don't know, unusual?

The pilots didn't mention the use of 100 octane fuel, they only mentioned the use of "emergency power" (+12 boost) which was only allowed if the aircraft was fueled up with 100 octane fuel. They did mention the use of "emergency power" because they had to report any use of it; so the ground crew knew that the engine should be inspected with special care.

However I don't think they were strictly required to mention the use in "Intelligence Form F" (Combat Report) as the ground crew wouldn't read them. However it was a useful information for the intelligence officer, for example if the pilot was able to catch up with a Bf 109 using +12 boost.

[Korn]

Ok that i understand, thanks for explaining it to me. It really made no sense before .