Author Topic: V-1 "Buzz Bomb" KILLS (Read 3972 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #105 on:** January 22, 2006, 11:31:46 PM »

Quote

The link you posted which is labeled "Gasoline consumption of airplanes with units in ETO" shows a consumption by fighters of 10.8 million US gallons. It makes no mention of fuel grade, or airforce. Simply that the units were "in ETO". Logically we would assume it is showing both 8th and 9th AF consumption given that the consumption total is FAR beyond the operational requirement of the 8th AF. Especially given that we have other documents that clearly state the 8th AF's supply and requirements for 150 octane fuel, and that those requirements much more closely match their actual useage based on operational sorties. This makes it clear that the 8th AF had enough supply of 150 octane fuel for all of their operational sorties.

I posted both documents Sable so that the comparision could be made between 100/130 consumption and that document.

Your going to walk me through your assumption. Going off the supply document the 8th USAAF requirements does not meet more than 30-50 percent of the consumption of total fuels used by 8th USAAF FG.

The 9th AF is not part of the ETO, it is part of the MTO for command and part of the North Africa district for fuel distribution. Completely different command.

You can stop posting the USAAF memo from supply, I have a copy and used those requirements myself.

How many times are you going to make me repost this?

http://img13.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc204&image=92c9d_World_Wide_fuel_distribution.jpg

Now that it is clear the European fuel district is the 8th USAAF a some facts stand out that have no explaination under the "8th AF fighters permanently adopted 100/150 grade" theory.

1. There is a clear increase in 100/130 grade consumption by the European Fuel district after the trouble with "pep" develops.

2. The steady drop in 100/130 grade consumption is consistant with the timeline of attempt to the adopt 100/150 grade fuel.

3. The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers during January, Feburary and March, so the consumption of 100/130 grade should exhibit a decline not a sharp sudden increase.

Numbers and type of fighters in 8th USAAF FC:

http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg

100/130 grade overseas consumption:

http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc209&image=87656_130_grade_consumption.jpg

Quote

(I also totaled the sorties for August 1944, just to give another random sample - 17,546 x 489 gallons = 8.6 million total, well below the 14.7 million on your chart for Aug 44 - and a large percentage of these missions were short range fighter bomber attacks in france which would have used much less fuel, and no drop tanks so 8th AF fighter consumption was almost certainly much lower then the 8.6mil I arrived at)

You do not have to figure fighter consumption, it is listed in the document I posted. If 100/150 grade became the standard then monthly requirements (assuming no reserve) should match up in the ball park of consumption. In fact the monthly requirement requested should easily exceed consumption with the excess being the reserve. Instead it does not come anywhere near either matching or exceeding it. The stated requirement does not even make up 50 percent of the fighter consumption in the ETO.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #106 on:** January 22, 2006, 11:40:34 PM »

ETO fighter consumption in thousands of US gallons:

http://img143.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc103&image=9afea_fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg

Kev367th · « **Reply #107 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:00:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
I said from the begining that having supply documents is not the same as operational documents.

Would this also apply to an order to use a certain fuel not being proof of it being used operationally?

Or do we get back to having two standards for proof depending on whether its Allied or LW?

Not specifally aimed at you, but it seems that allied have to provide a document signed by Jesus countersigned by God to even be considered as proof.
Whereas the LW just need a soggy beermat signed in crayon by Herr Mickey Mouse and Frau Minnie mouse to be considered gospel.

As I said not specifically aimed at you, but I would hope you would agree the same standard should apply to all.

i.e. squadron level documents showing what is claimed.

Jester · « **Reply #108 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:01:12 AM »

GENTLEMEN, how about lets get back to the subject of the thread, "V-1 KILLS", or move the "Gas Wars" next door to another thread.

Think you guys have pretty much beaten this "High Test Horse" to death.

Tks.

Sable · « **Reply #109 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:42:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
I posted both documents Sable so that the comparision could be made between 100/130 consumption and that document.

Your going to walk me through your assumption. Going off the supply document the 8th USAAF requirements does not meet more than 30-50 percent of the consumption of total fuels used by 8th USAAF FG.

The 9th AF is not part of the ETO, it is part of the MTO for command and part of the North Africa district for fuel distribution. Completely different command.

[/b]

Crumpp, the 9th AF WAS based in the ETO. Your document doesn't specify that it is talking about just the 8th AF, and doesn't specify "ETO in terms of supply chain". It just says "In ETO" which would literally mean located in the ETO. It is vague, whereas the documents specifically listing the 8th AF requirements and supply are very specific. Your interpretation of that document to discredit every other piece of evidence to the contrary is in disagreement with all the other documents, statements of 8th AF veterans, photos, and a published historian.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

How many times are you going to make me repost this?

http://img13.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc204&image=92c9d_World_Wide_fuel_distribution.jpg

[/b]

This doc is nearly unreadable, and has no date. The 9th AF was originally founded as a Middle East Air Force in 1942. It was based in North africa and so it obviously would have fallen into the MTO during this time frame. But in Oct of 1943 it moved to England, and was most certainly part of the ETO in the time frame we are talking about. Furthermore, as I showed above the fuel consumption totals you posted are FAR beyond what 8th Fighter Command could have used on it's own, seeing as we know how many operational sorties they flew. Also the fuel consumption totals you posted make no mention of what grade it refers to. Because of this it's only logical to make the assumption that the document is showing both 8th and 9th AF consumption, and that the supply chain document is from an earlier date when the 9th AF was actually based in the MTO.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

1. There is a clear increase in 100/130 grade consumption by the European Fuel district after the trouble with "pep" develops.

2. The steady drop in 100/130 grade consumption is consistant with the timeline of attempt to the adopt 100/150 grade fuel.

3. The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers during January, Feburary and March, so the consumption of 100/130 grade should exhibit a decline not a sharp sudden increase.

Numbers and type of fighters in 8th USAAF FC:

http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg

100/130 grade overseas consumption:

http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc209&image=87656_130_grade_consumption.jpg

[/b]

Crumpp your 100/130 fuel consumption doc shows WORLDWIDE consumption by the USAAF. That means it includes, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 20th Air Forces! It's showing the consumption of every bomber, fighter, transport, and trainer in every air force the US had. To try and draw conclusions about the consumption of the 8th alone just from this document, and then to say that those conclusions are correct inspite of the fact that documents specific to the 8th disagree with your conclusions is preposterous! Not only that, but the large spike you are refering to in Feb/Mar of 1945 is largely made up from an increase in Zone of the Interior consumption! (that is airplanes in the US!)

All the documents that actually say specifically 8th Air Force lead us to the conclusion that there was more then enough supply of 150 octane fuel to meet the requirements they list. Calculating the approximate requirement based on the number of operational sorties we know they flew leads us to agree with this point - there was clearly more then enough supply of 150 octane fuel to meet the demand of the operational sorties flown by the 8th AF fighter command.

At this point there is no reason to argue the supply question any further. The only counter evidence you have presented is based on making guesses from charts that offer no data specific to the 8th Air Force.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #110 on:** January 23, 2006, 05:12:21 AM »

Quote

The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers during January, Feburary and March, so the consumption of 100/130 grade should exhibit a decline not a sharp sudden increase.

4thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
20thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
55thFG - in Germany
56thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
78thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
339thFG - returned to USA Oct 45
352cdFG - returned to USA Nov 45
353rdFG - returned to USA Oct 45
355thFG - in Germany
356thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
357thFG - in Germany
359thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
361stFG - returned to USA Nov 45
364thFG - returned to USA Nov 45
479thFG - returned to USA Nov 45

So what FGs left?

justin_g · « **Reply #111 on:** January 23, 2006, 05:53:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jester
GENTLEMEN, how about lets get back to the subject of the thread, "V-1 KILLS", or move the "Gas Wars" next door to another thread.

Think you guys have pretty much beaten this "High Test Horse" to death.

Tks.

Good Idea! Chuck the horse in the pit and move on...

justfreds · « **Reply #112 on:** January 23, 2006, 03:07:06 PM »

the germans had a piloted version of the v1

Scherf · « **Reply #113 on:** January 23, 2006, 04:15:01 PM »

Alfred Price says the difference in V-1 speeds was down to manufacturing variation, as the production wasn't held to aircraft tolerances.

helldiver · « **Reply #114 on:** January 23, 2006, 04:44:44 PM »

i know of a instant if i remember correctly a tympest or a typhoon pilot tip a v-1 over

Crumpp · « **Reply #115 on:** January 23, 2006, 06:24:48 PM »

Quote

So what FGs left?

Look at the document Milo.

http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg

That chart is produced by the USAAF.

Quote

All the documents that actually say specifically 8th Air Force lead us to the conclusion that there was more then enough supply of 150 octane fuel to meet the requirements they list.

You have a request from supply but nothing from the Operational HQ ordering the use.

Again, the document that dictates the ALL the types of fuel authorized in USAAF aircraft by type does not list 100/150 grade as authorized.

T.O. 02-1-38 Specified and Alternate Grade Fuel for Aircraft-Engine Combinations (2 Oct 1944, rev. 10 Feb 1945, rev. 20 May 1945)

A Technical Order would have most certainly been issued to cover the fuel usage along with instructions on the modifications to the aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #116 on:** January 23, 2006, 06:48:57 PM »

Where does it say FG. It only gives the number of operational fighters

Your conclusion is incorrect.

The number of FGs in the 8th did not decrease in number.

Crumpp · « **Reply #117 on:** January 23, 2006, 07:07:33 PM »

Quote

The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers

They are decreasing in numbers....

Read the chart:

http://img141.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc235&image=c381a_8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg

Your assumption I meant units instead of aircraft is rather moronic unless you simply did not bother to look at the document I posted.

I tend to think that is what happenend.

Or maybe you think all those P51's were assigned to the 8th Quatermaster instead of an FG?

Typical.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #118 on:** January 23, 2006, 07:10:42 PM »

Oh, not the reading problem issues again.
Ok. - allies were low on good fuel, didn't handle it anyway, and all those hundred's of V-1's they caught were Hizooka HO's.

Is the horse dead yet?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #119 on:** January 23, 2006, 07:33:13 PM »

Yup Angus, Crumpp is having troubles with English, again. Now, if he could write properly he would have said:

The number of a/c in the FGs of the 8thAF were decreasing.

That is not what he said, dispite his chart.

quote:
The 8th USAAF FG's were decreasing in numbers

You are writing a book, Crumpp.

Keep wiggling.