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

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

How about even a decision or plan after the spring of 1940 (when this paper states that select squadrons are to be issued with 100 octane, so we can know for quite certain that at this point, it was meant for some and not all) that all Fighter Squadrons are to switch over to 100 octane? Even a plan, a draft..? Apparently, people who have been quite desperate to find such evidence for years could find none, even though I am quite sure they looked under every rock and grow rather frustrated in the process.

I am quite certain that if the British took such pain to note and discuss at such high levels that some Squadrons will use 100 octane from - was it March? - there should be ample discussion and record about extending the avgas issues to other Squadrons.

The lack of such evidence makes it quite likely that such sudden, overnight changeover simply didn't happen until after the Battle.

No Kurfurst. You are not even an honest man. What would make you happy is if everyone agreed with your rhetoric wholeheartedly, that 100 octane was never used. This way you could be a bigger ace online.
Over time you have been forced into changing that view to admit it was used by at least some, but that is a battle lost as part of a wider war.

Let me put this other prosecutive angle on your theory for you (I made up a new word). You believe in the 109, you see it as superior and dislike the thought that it was matched, or worse, bettered. So you seek to discredit your foe as much as you can and display an enormous bias to the impartial viewer. Let us say that you are wholly correct and the 109 was as superior as you make out - in that case can you explain how the Luftwaffe was so decisively beaten? I can draw a conclusion given the superiority of the 109 in your world that the Luftwaffe pilots must've been rubbish. It can't be tactics, the RAF were hugely outnumbered and only had 300 Spitfires out of the 900 fighters, and the tactics only changed when Goering started to panic.

So what is your agenda? Are you just a bad virtual pilot or something?

[41Sqn_Banks]

RAF Manston certainly had 100 octane fuel on 29th July 1940.

41 Squadron took off from Manston of on this day and one of it's pilots used 12 boost during this sortie.

http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/424/4240182.gif
http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/424/4240191.gif
http://www.oldrafrecords.com/records/424/4240192.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Webster-29july40.jpg

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

No Kurfurst. You are not even an honest man. What would make you happy is if everyone agreed with your rhetoric wholeheartedly, that 100 octane was never used. This way you could be a bigger ace online.
Over time you have been forced into changing that view to admit it was used by at least some, but that is a battle lost as part of a wider war.

Let me put this other prosecutive angle on your theory for you (I made up a new word). You believe in the 109, you see it as superior and dislike the thought that it was matched, or worse, bettered. So you seek to discredit your foe as much as you can and display an enormous bias to the impartial viewer. Let us say that you are wholly correct and the 109 was as superior as you make out - in that case can you explain how the Luftwaffe was so decisively beaten? I can draw a conclusion given the superiority of the 109 in your world that the Luftwaffe pilots must've been rubbish. It can't be tactics, the RAF were hugely outnumbered and only had 300 Spitfires out of the 900 fighters, and the tactics only changed when Goering started to panic.

So what is your agenda? Are you just a bad virtual pilot or something?

I am sure that the Spitfire was little better than 109 in some aspects. But they were very well matched. The luftwaffe failure was not by the spitfire superiority as a fighter or tactics. But for many reasons.

Of the total of the 109s lost how many were lost simply because they did not come home due lack of fuel and not by being shot down? I will not be surprise if something more than 20% or 30% were lost this way.