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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Those who doubt the Previous Posting

Their arguments seem to be based on the following

The Phrase the Units concerned and Certain Units

It’s my belief that these words were used to refer to bases/units which had not yet been converted to 100 Octane.

Yes it's your belief and it's supported by nothing and specifically disproven by the documents you supplied yourself. These papers discuss in great lenght and express specifically that 100 octane is not meant for all stations, and specifically dismiss the suggestion to have only 100 octane at those stations which do not require it.

Originally Posted by Glider

We know that the roll out had already started, as proved by the Station / Combat reports we have from February 1940. This view is supported I believe by:-

• The total lack of any conversion records of any FC station or squadron after May 1940 which were checked until May/June 1941

'Which were checked' seem to be keyword here. You checked but a handful of reports but mislead everyone here that there's no trace. The truth is you haven't checked it in a manner that would justify such claims.

The belief is expressed by some that the use of Certain or concerned proves that the roll out was limited and some have said that this is clearly a continuation of the pre war Feb 1939 plan.

Which it is, all the papers you have supplied follow exactly the schedule laid down by the March 1939 plan. Absolutely no indiciation or evidence have been presented that the plan was overidden at any time.

And certain means what it means.

We have the 21 stations identified as being in the first instance, clearly there was going to be a second instance, clearly this is more than 16 Squadrons.

Nope, these 21 stations you keep mentioning from the December 1939 letters by FC are merely a list of stations where RAF FC would have liked to have 100 octane fuel.

You have supplied no evidence that these 21 stations were approved for 100 octane issues nor that 100 octane was actually issued to them.

There is absolutely no evidence that says that the roll out was limited.

In other words, you have absolutely no information or evidence to the extent of the roll out, or that it was unlimited, and you merely keep ignoring and dismissing every paper that specifically note that it was limited as 'pre-war plans' and 'mis-types'.

As a minimum the Oil Co ordination committee would have been involved as they were responsible for the purchase, storage and distribution of all fuel.
Those who believe this to be the case are invited to provide some evidence. I have stated what I believe to be the definition of Certain and Concerned with what evidence I can find. Its not perfect but I have tried and have shown what I found. I invite the doubters to do the same

Here's the definition of 'certain' for you:

pronoun
(certain of)
some but not all:
certain of his works have been edited

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...tain?q=certain

Pips Views
This paper has never been seen but more importantly there is no evidence to support any of the statements made in it. The War Cabinet didn’t make the decisions he said it did.

We have discussed this. To put it bluntly, your claims about checking the War Cabinet decisions was a lie.

There was no shortage of 100 Octane, nothing. Again those who believe this view are encouraged to find some evidence to support any part of it.

This is a nice strawman argument. Nobody claimed that the there was a shortage of 100 octane stocks, however there were uncertainities with consistent supplies, partly due to U-boot activity and partly due to dependence on US manufacturers, their capacity and willingness; this is clearly noted by a dozen British historians like Morgan and Shacklady or the official studies. You ignore them all.

Pips Didn’t Mean the War Cabinet
This view that the War Cabinet was actually a much bigger thing with hundreds of component parts is fanciful. The War Cabinet was the War Cabinet, it had a structure, it had members, it had minutes and it was chaired by the Prime Minister. A lot of parties reported to it, including the Air Ministry and the Oil Committee, but the War Cabinet was the War Cabinet and the minutes are available on line.
People who believe this are invited to find out who made these decisions, it wasn’t the Air Ministry and it wasn’t the War Cabinet.

You keep repeating this obvious nonsense. On one hand you claim the War Cabinet was one single body, and then you contradict yourself that 'a lot of parties reported to it'. The nonsense Glider repeats is that the War Cabinet had no Committes, and then he names the Oil Committee of the War Cabinet.

Committees are smaller cells of the Cabinet, and Glider hadn't checked these, but claims he has done so. Further information at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/r...fice.htm#17741

Pilots Notes I and IIB
This has been done in some detail recently. The only thing I can add is that I would expect to find Spit I Pilots notes to have 100 octane and 87 Octane because:-
a) it was in service before 100 Octane was available
b) Spit I’s were in the training Units and they didn’t have 100 Octane

I am curious of the evidence of the claims made in b). So which 'training units' had Spitfire Is and from where do you take they had no 100 octane fuel? Have you seen a document about it? A paper? A list of which units have 100 octane and which didn't?

Important Note
I invite anyone to look at the evidence put forward to support each side of the case and make their own minds up

Well to cut the long story short, the only definitive evidence you have provided is that 100 octane was used by about 30 Squadrons out of 60, or about 20 Stations out of 50.

And that is just that, about 1/3 to 1/2 the units, so quite simply there's no factual basis, or evidence to, that all the others were using 100 octane. It's merely a wishful assumption.

[Al Schlageter]

So Barbi what RAF FC squadrons used only 87 octane fuel?

[Osprey]

He doesn't know. But remember, the fact that there is no evidence is countered by the fact that the RAF were the enemy of his favourite aeroplane. When the second fact occurs then no other facts matter.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

We have discussed this. To put it bluntly, your claims about checking the War Cabinet decisions was a lie.

This is a nice strawman argument. Nobody claimed that the there was a shortage of 100 octane stocks, however there were uncertainities with consistent supplies, partly due to U-boot activity and partly due to dependence on US manufacturers, their capacity and willingness; this is clearly noted by a dozen British historians like Morgan and Shacklady or the official studies. You ignore them all.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well let's see now the reality.

Tanker losses to all causes, I have gathered a total of 78(!!) tankers were sunk by mine, U-boot (typically), aircraft and raiders, between September 1939 and November 1940. About 90% of them were British, though there are a couple of Swedish, Dutch, French etc. tankers
Tanker losses were serious, unfortunately.

From the NA:
cab68/6/11 "War Cabinet Oil Position: Thirty-third Weekly Report: 23 April 1940" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ Click "Search" then "Browse our guidance A-Z" Click "C" then "Cabinet Government" which will highlight "The Cabinet and its committees" scroll down to 3. "Cabinet Papers online" click on cab68; enter reference no. "cab68/6/11" in this format in top l/h corner of new page, click on "Go to reference"; click on "View digital image" then "+Add to shopping"; it is free and downloadable)

"The process of bringing Norwegian tankers under Allied control has advanced during the week, and of a total fleet of 212 Norwegian tankers 119 are now under Allied control, while 18 are proceeding to Allied ports; 93 are in neutral ports or reported to be proceeding to neutral ports..."

Meaning in April 1940 Britain had already gained the use of 119 Norwegian tankers, 41 more than were sunk between Sept 1939 and November 1940, and more were expected.

cab68/7/31 "War Cabinet Oil Position Monthly Report: November 1940" (issued 20 December) (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/r...-1939-1945.htm)


Table I: "Imports Into the United Kingdom (Services and Civil)"

Shows the total number of tankers arriving in UK ports in the year between September 1939 and August 1940 = 947: (Total shown in table = 1,079 minus 132, June to August 1939.)

March to May 1940 = 109 tankers; 1,112,300 tons imported;
June to August = 100 tankers; 1,058,900 tons

total tonnage of oil products imported = 9,986,900. (11,126,900 minus 1,140,000 tons, imported June to August 1939.): an average of 10,546 tons per tanker.

September and October 1940: 124 tankers (62 per month) arrived and in November 80: September = 640,500 tons of imports; October = 651,600; November = 890,300 tons

Grand Total of Tankers arriving in UK Sept 1939 to November 1940 = 1,151
Grand Total of Oil Products Imported = 12,169,300 tons: 10,573 tons of oil product per tanker

Total number sunk Sept 1939 - Nov 1940 = 78(!!); 385,957 tons of oil product = roughly 6.8% tankers; roughly 3.2% of tons imported to Britain. The amount of oil product per tanker destroyed was 4,948 tons, meaning on average the tankers sunk were carrying less than half the weight of cargo each tanker that arrived in port was discharging; the tankers being sunk were either smaller than average, or, more likely, at least half of them were sunk in ballast.

Quantity of fuel available ( production estimates) from non US sources as of November 1940

Heysham 150,000 tons
Trinidad 80,000 tons
Billingham 15,000 tons
Stanlow 55,000 tons
Abadan 50,000 tons
Aruba 50,000 tons
Palembang 50,000 tons
Pladjoe 50,000 tons

[Kurfürst]

The current level of evidence for 100 octane use with all units of Fighter Command summarized:



+

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The current level of evidence for 100 octane use with all units of Fighter Command summarized:



+

When Barbi starts trolling, you know that he is squirming like a worm skewered on a fishing hook.

His 2cd image is of American 4 stack destroyers laying a smokescreen, which he is doing.

[Al Schlageter]

It can be put to rest that the stations listed in the Dec 7 1939 document did indeed get 100 octane fuel, except possibly one.

10 Group

Filton
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940
St Athan - training base

11 Group

Biggin Hill
No. 32 Squadron pre BoB H,
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron June 1940

Manston
600 squadron Blenheims

Marlesham Heath
No. 85 Squadron May 1940 H

Hornchurch
No. 41 Squadron June 1940,
No. 65 (East India) Squadron 12 Aug 1940,
No. 74 Squadron May 1940 S

Northholt
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron June 1940

Croydon
No. 111 Squadron pre BoB

Tangmere
No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron May 1940 H

Debden
No. 17 Squadron May 1940

Nowrth Weald
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron May 1940,
No. 151 Squadron Feb 1940

12 Group

Duxford
No. 19 Squadron May 1940

Digby
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron June 1940

Leconfield
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940,
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron 6 Sept 1940

Church Fenton
No. 73 Squadron May 1940,
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron May 1940 H,
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron 15 Aug 1940

Wittering
No. 229 Squadron May 1940 H

13 group

Drem
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron pre BoB

Turnhouse
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron 31 Aug 1940

Grangemounth
No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron

Acklington
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron 4 Sept 1940,
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron May 1940 H,

Catterick
No. 41 Squadron June 1940

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Yes it's your belief and it's supported by nothing and specifically disproven by the documents you supplied yourself. These papers discuss in great lenght and express specifically that 100 octane is not meant for all stations, and specifically dismiss the suggestion to have only 100 octane at those stations which do not require it.

You need to be careful Kurfurst. The papers go to great length to say that the 100 octane is targeted in the first instance at the 21 stations which were all the stations that had Spitfires and Hurricanes at the time and we know that the RAF units in France and Norway were added to the list. Later your complaint is that is says it was targeted at all these stations but it did not get issued. However, your problem is that to aim for 21 stations is a change in the pre war statement of intent, something you say was carried out without alteration.

'Which were checked' seem to be keyword here. You checked but a handful of reports but mislead everyone here that there's no trace. The truth is you haven't checked it in a manner that would justify such claims.

This is your one comment which is correct. In two places on the posting I made it clear that I hadn't looked at all the squadrons and I didn't here.

Which it is, all the papers you have supplied follow exactly the schedule laid down by the March 1939 plan. Absolutely no indiciation or evidence have been presented that the plan was overidden at any time.

The problem here is that you do not know the details behind the paper. For instance, which squadrons, which bases, when, how does the the fuel get distributed. You cannot reply to these questions so it isn't a plan. A plan has etails that tell you how to get there, no detail no plan..
We do know that this aim was changed if only by the number of bomber units equipped with 100 Octane.

Nope, these 21 stations you keep mentioning from the December 1939 letters by FC are merely a list of stations where RAF FC would have liked to have 100 octane fuel.

This is where you need to make up your mind. If it helps Al matched 20 of the 21 stations to 100 Octane fuel in an earlier posting and as we know, those in France and Norway were issued with it as well.

In other words, you have absolutely no information or evidence to the extent of the roll out, or that it was unlimited, and you merely keep ignoring and dismissing every paper that specifically note that it was limited as 'pre-war plans' and 'mis-types'.

Its a theory but as I have pointed out, the pre war paper says 16 squadrons and we have over 30, its a problem for you.

We have discussed this. To put it bluntly, your claims about checking the War Cabinet decisions was a lie.

You know that I went through the War Cabinet files, I gave you the link, the file numbers concerned and even said I would help you if you had a problem. You have said that you have been through them and I am confident that you didn't find what you wanted, as you would have shouted it from the rooftops.

To now say I lied about going through the papers is a new low even for you.

This is a nice strawman argument. Nobody claimed that the there was a shortage of 100 octane stocks, however there were uncertainities with consistent supplies, partly due to U-boot activity and partly due to dependence on US manufacturers, their capacity and willingness; this is clearly noted by a dozen British historians like Morgan and Shacklady or the official studies. You ignore them all.

A couple of points:-
a) If there wasn't a shortage and we had a three year stockpile, why would the roll out be limited.
b) If there were uncertanties about supply, why did we halt production at the Billingham refinery because it wasn't needed
c) Please list the dozen Historians you refer to, or the official studies

You keep repeating this obvious nonsense. On one hand you claim the War Cabinet was one single body, and then you contradict yourself that 'a lot of parties reported to it'. The nonsense Glider repeats is that the War Cabinet had no Committes, and then he names the Oil Committee of the War Cabinet.

What I said is true. You have seen the minutes on the link I gave you,The War Cabinet is chaired by the PM, it has its own members. It isn't a committee, but organisations such as the Oil Committee and Air Ministry do report to it.
You did look at those files I gave you, didn't you?
If anyone would like me to reissue the details so they can check for the decisions Pips says were made by the War Cabinet and make their own mind up, please let me know.

I am curious of the evidence of the claims made in b). So which 'training units' had Spitfire Is and from where do you take they had no 100 octane fuel? Have you seen a document about it? A paper? A list of which units have 100 octane and which didn't?

OTU's had some Spitfires and Hurricanes and as Training units didn't have 100 Octane, so they used 87 Octane and papers have been submitted stating this. You have read the papers submitted haven't you?. The Luftwaffe used early 109's in a similar training role, I am sure.
I admit to not knowing where you are coming from here. Are you saying tht the RAF would give 100 Octane to training units, but not to front line units?

Well to cut the long story short, the only definitive evidence you have provided is that 100 octane was used by about 30 Squadrons out of 60, or about 20 Stations out of 50.

And that is just that, about 1/3 to 1/2 the units, so quite simply there's no factual basis, or evidence to, that all the others were using 100 octane. It's merely a wishful assumption.

I have explained about the change in the storage of the records and it is now very expensive to look at combat records. But 30 is a lot more than 16.