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

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is an ambiguity...period.

What else needs to be said?

The rest of the argument is built on speculation. What is the difference on the sides?

What sides are there anyway outside of gamer context?? There is only the facts and a mystery to be solved.

If you have consumption documents, why not try to plot FC operations vs consumption of 100 grade.

If you see a the curves correspond, they it is probable the fuel was used by FC.

Glider says:
I will drop the agression and let the documents speak for themselves.

Can you clear up the ambiguity, please?

[Timberwolf]

No idea why i just skimmed by 11 pages about 87-100 octane But from what i read (The Role Of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany by Dr. Peter W. Becker.) and heard from other pilots That The RAF were in shortage of high octane fuel and lots of it was shipped in from the USA and Canada as part of the lead/lease agreement. After the war Many test were done to see which was the better aircraft the Carb, Spitfire or F.I., 109 Which in many cases was tested using the same grade fuel and facts posted as such. Which were false.
Germany had a high import of oil pre war but a low storage of high octane
even with their infamous peace treaty with Russia in 1939 yielded them 4 million barrels of fuel per year (starting in 1940) and the Russians were diligent in delivering the fuel.

I'm no fuel expert or historian on ww2 fuel supplies but i don't think it would make 1c change to HP on the spit or 109 by 10mph

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Can you clear up the ambiguity, please?

No ambiguity, the RAFFC used 100% 100 octane during the BofB.

There is no evidence that the above source is wrong. None.

No one has presented a shred of evidence that even one RAFFC operational Merlin engined fighter squadron used anything but 100% 100 octane.

[Kurfürst]

You sound like a religious fanatic, Seadog.. do you think that repeating the same and always having the last word is convincing? Let me tell you, it isn't.

[Crumpp]

There is no evidence that the above source is wrong. None.

Sure we do Seadog. You posted a secondary source. That is somebodies research paper.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event.

A journal/magazine article which interprets or reviews previous findings

We have a primary source that is clear in its declaration of "certain units".

Did the author of your article have the primary source in his possession? Probably not if he made that declaration in his article.

A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.

http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

Facts are nobody on these boards can say for sure at this time. We have a primary source that presents an ambiguity. You cannot alter the facts of the primary sources to suit your gaming needs. Primary sources present the facts that are the foundation upon which ALL secondary sources are developed.

Your secondary source contradicts a primary source and is therefore not the full story. In that sense, it is wrong.

[Crumpp]

As I have said before I don't know why he said certain, but I do know that the first paper was clear and that the request was without limitation.

Without a doubt the RAF wanted 100 grade fuel without limitation.

The intention is certainly there to switch to 100 grade.

That does not mean it was possible in the time frame given. I read the first meeting declares the intention.

The first paper also states that FC is still not sure of technical requirements to make the switch and therefore has not even begun to operate any aircraft with the fuel.

I don't think they are not just going to switch the entire force in the midst of a fight for survival over without first making an operational test to ensure the fuel is suitable.

The second meeting authorizes the change for certain units. That is a fact. I don't believe that it was misspoken by the author.

[Glider]

If we are talking of primary source and secondary sources of information. Is there any source to support the theory that the RAF in the BOB were not fully equipped with 100 Octane.

Pips posting presumably doesn't count as a source

[Kurfürst]

As a matter of fact, despite Glider's claims the word certain is not limited to a single paper, it is kept repeated in all papers available. It hardly a case of mistyping as Glider would like you to believe.

12 December 1939 - 100 Octane, issue of. Again it talks of "Fighter Stations concerned" "certain Unitsin the Bomber Command" approved stations", "relevant stations".

That is pretty straightforward I think:

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Thanks for that (and I do mean it) the problem is that the last paper is dated December 1939 and the others are pre war.

We are of course talking about decisions taken in 1940 so whilst they are interesting in a historical way, they are out of date. No long term plan of any kind in any nation goes unchanged once the bullets start flying, as priorities change. I take it you agree that Pips posting doesn't count as a source.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
You are linking two totally different paper trails as if they were one.

The fourth paper that you have added is covered in my positing 150 and 172.

The fifth paper covers the equipment of Bomber Command with 100 Octane. The four stations mentioned are those that have to have the 87 octane fuel removed and they are the stations that were authorised to be 100% equipped with 100 Octane. The fighter command section is the removal of 87 octane from each fighter station concerned.

The last paper confirms that the fuel transfer has been completed concerned.

Concerned I take to mean that some will not need all the fuel removed. I would expect the large sector stations to keep some 87 Octane in a similar manner to Bomber Command and the Blenheims of No 2 group. The smaller stations would need to have the fuel removed as done for four stations in No 2 Group. Its worth remembering that some units started using 100 Octane in Feb 1940, before these decisions for a complete roll out were made so to some degree it was already out there and in use.

Clearly you believe that this is a limitation to the roll out, I have given my explanation and can prove it to a degree by supporting the use of 100 Octane in Feb, plus it follows the same principle as used in No 2 Group. Far from perfect I agree but better than nothing.

Can you support your contention that its a limitation to the scale of the roll out?

So back to the first question I ever asked you, what is certain? Which units, which bases

I also take this opportunity to post a War Cabinet Paper that I copied. Its not of interest but it might help you calm your concerns that I never went to the NA or saw the papers.