Crumpp
I believe I have done in my posting 150. Two papers are posted, the first item 9 in the summary of conclusions of the 5th meeting of the Oil Committee. This paper clearly and without any limitation says that the ACAS has requested that squadrons armed with fighters and Blenheims should begin to use 100 Octane

The second paper May 1940 which is for the Summary of actions for the 6th Meeting of the Oil Committee is the one that contains the magic Certain word. This paper specifically refers to item 9 of the Summary of the Conclusions of the 5th Meeting so it is clear that it is refering to the previous paper.

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.
I am pretty sure that the Oil Committee largely staffed by Air Force Officers wouldn't overide the Chief of the Air Staff without some explanation.
I once worked for the Company Secretary of an Insurance Company and normal practice if the action had changed would be to document the change in the papers for the next meeting. Otherwise people would not know what actions to take or what the Oil Committee are expected to do or be responsible for.
Can I guarantee that they didn't follow standard practice, no I cannot, but Civil Service bodies all over the world love paperwork and the chances are very slim.

If people believe that Certain means a limit of some kind then I believe that they need to try and identify what that limit is and not make assumptions. I looked into it and the only link I found was to the first paper which is unambigious.

I repost the papers for you

Hope this helps

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...t-approval.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...Mar1939web.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...aneissueof.png
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ng_actions.png
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ng_summary.png

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.

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.

You are welcome. Now, normal conversation is much more enjoyable, isn't it.. I hope we can keep it that way. I did add a couple of others in the meantime.

As far as I go, I see no problem. In March 1939 they decided that 100 octane will be issued to 16+2 Sqns, ie. a portion of FC and BC. They said the process shall start in the end of 1939, and indeed it did.

In short I do not see a single point that would show that they were doing anything else then (rather slowly) executing the plan according to the March 1939 plan.

That would be a perfectly logical conclusion, a clausula rebus sic stantibus. However you can't simply assume this must have, and did happened. If they revised the pre-war plans, there should be documentation of it. Find it, present it, and I will believe your thesis immidiately.

No, I don't agree. It isn't a source in a way that we do not have scans of the original papers, on the other hand I have absolutely no reason to believe Pips would misreport his findings, and also his comments agree completely with what we found so far. I see no reason to doubt it.

If the pre-war plans were revised, I tend to believe this happened after May 1940. The 7th meeting etc. is clear that they supplied 100 octane to a number of FC/BC Stations/Squadrons, but not all.

That's why it would be interesting to look at the complete file, esp. the post May 1940 happenings to see when the original limited introduction of 100 octane was revised. The consumption figures between May - November 1940 do not lie: the 100 octane issues were practically the same in mid-May and mid-August, the height of activity, as long until the end of September indiciating that there was no expansion in the scale of use until late September, also shown by the sudden drop of 87 octane issues.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...vember1940.png

I direct you to post no. 42 by The Grunch:

Do you guys ever fly? :confused: