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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3217673

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...=1#post3358320



-Berger, Monty and Street, Brian Jeffrey.Invasion Without Tears. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994 (1st ed) ISBN 0-394-22277-6

And that's all? That's all Crumpp can put forward to somehow "prove" that the RAF didn't use 100 Octane fuel in 1940? What have either of these two replies got to do with fuel stockpiles or any of the other nonsense Crumpp has been spouting?

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NZTyphoon, Once again.....

In the pursuit of gamers proving 100/150 grade was the standard fuel of the RAF, documents were produced that showed hundreds of thousand of tons of the fuel being moved around various stations and brought into the RAF logistical system in anticipation of the fuel being adopted.

The operational use turned out to be extremely limited and for a very short period of time before it was withdrawn from service.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

As noted, the whole story ever increasingly reminds old participants of the 150 grade-fiasco of lane and co. The agenda of 'all the RAF fighter Command was using 150 grade' was pressed with the same fortitude, documents were manipulated and doctored for support the same, until documentary evidence become clear and it turned out that 'all +25 lbs Mark IXs using 150 grade' were in fact but two Sqns on operational trials, the '+25 lbs Mk XIVs' lane was pushing for never existed due to technical troubles, those '+25 RAF Mustang IIIs of the RAF in 1944' were again just two Sqns who have seen the enemy about twice, once over France and once over the North Sea, were and proposed use of 150 grade in the 2nd TAF's IX units was recalled after a month of operation in 1945 - a fact that lane still omits from his website articles.

The 100 octane story/agenda is the same, with the same old origins, methods and smokescreen - though I am sure its can be presented as better case than what turned out to be the truth about 150 grade (giggles).

Reading the whole thread presented by Crumpp shows nothing like the story Barbi tells; in fact far from proving Mike Williams aka lane wrong, or showing any evidence of "manipulated or doctored documents" Crumpp congratulated Mike on his research - which is about all Crumpp got right. Just another example of how Barbi is prepared to stretch and manipulate the truth in an effort to discredit other members of this forum.

Sorry, if Crumpp thinks the thread he has presented as "evidence" proves his case, that the RAF built up reserves of 100 octane without using it, he is dreaming. All it proves is that that Barbi and co have lost the debate and have nothing practical to say.