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

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

[camber]

Dear Kurfurst,

I can't agree with your characterisation of your interaction with Gavin Bailey, (author of The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain; the English Historical Review) and reading through it seems very unlikely that there was a mischevious impersonator in the mix.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.

The thread in question is only a click away
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...b-16305-5.html

I will quote the most relevant parts. The original thread is above in case you wish to check whether Gavin Bailey dropped his approach of professionalism and became rude or inappropriate at any point.

To me this is not going ape in a childish fashion:

Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -

The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review

I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.

I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.

It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.

You go on to state the following -

I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.

I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):

'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'

I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.

The mods note that the discussion is heated and (rather lazily) ask both parties to desist. Gavin Bailey quite reasonably points out he is the wronged party.

Micdrow,

In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;

1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).

2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).

3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).

4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.

I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.

In the end the mods rather apologetically (to Gavin) lock the thread so not to have to deal with it.

Sadly, camber

[CWMV]

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

[gavinb]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Jesus tap dancing Christ, can all of you just present your evidence, nock off the character assassination crap and for the love of God grow up?
My God...just....my God!

Edit: Kurfurst, crump, nztyphoon et al, just what exactly do you all gain in this?

The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.

In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.

In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.

In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.

This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.

One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.

I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.

One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.

In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.

If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/

In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.

Gavin Bailey