Where is your evidence that this material actually exists? You have not viewed the material itself - Your words, not mine.

You are quoting material from another forum the thread of which which - conveniently - is no longer accessible: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...0&st=0&start=0

(http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20110&page=28)

So, you do have a contact for Mr Pip but cannot provide the material you so strenuously defend?

Have you actually searched for the papers yourself? You keep telling others to do so, but have not bothered to do some basic research of your own?

If you are so right about them, I would have thought you would have long ago jumped at the chance to present them and prove everyone else wrong - you know, embarrass the naysayers. Why haven't you?

It's easy enough to start a search, just go onto http://www.awm.gov.au/database/ go down to "Official Records" which puts you onto http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/using/search/ - The AWM and NAA use the same search engine. Type in the title, or keywords if you don't have the official archive numbers...

Alternatively you can go onto this page http://www.awm.gov.au/contact/ and directly ask a question http://awm.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?key=research

Its easy - no long trips to Australia needed, and anyone here can do it.

The Pip statement:

As can bee seen the above is total nonsense.

"By 11th July 1940 the RAF had 343,000 tons of 100 octane in store, and the rate of importation was such that stocks rose to 424,000 tons by 10th October, 1940 after 22,000 tons had been issued during the Battle. Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, The Narrow Margin. The Battle of Britain and the Rise of Air Power 1930-1940 (Hutchinson, London 1967. First published 1961), p.101-102. Importation from BP at Abadan alone was sufficient to meet this consumption. Bamberg, The History of the British Petroleum Company, p.244"

Less than 6% of the July stock was used during the BoB, so hardly well below the level considered necessary for widespread use.

NZ, this is from the link you posted.

So absolutely wrong.

Glider,

Pips didn't say it was mentioned in War Cabinet Minutes papers - that's something that you seem to be reading into it, and you have entered a circular logic, that you think it should be in the papers titled 'War Cabinet minutes'' in CAB 65 (iirc) reference, and since it isn't, Pip's research is wrong. The logical error is clear to see, and I think mistake (in logic) is your's not Pip's.

The 'War Cabinet' is a rather general term and could refer to the War Cabinet with W.C. and the other people at the top, or any of the many Committees under the W.C.

Now I believe it was you who posted the attached paper. It seems to mention some kind of problems with tanker allocation. This sounds familiar from Morgan and Shacklady isn't it?

It also says: 'certain Fighter and Bomber squadrons should begin the use of 100 octane fuel'

and

'removal DDT 230 (ie. 87 octane - my note) fuel from Bomber and Fighter Command stations where 100 octane fuel is being bought into use'.

This hardly sounds as univeral use, David. In fact, it quite clearly says that there were to be selected Fighter and Bomber bases where 100 octane fuel was to be used. On another page they specifically say 'no' to Bomber Command's demands to have only 100 octane fuel on Bomber Stations on economical grounds (100 octane was more expensive, and Britain was running out of cash), save the 4 BC Stations mentioned.

Of course I haven't seen all the series of these papers. It would be nice to see them for all I guess. But since these and all subsequent papers I have mention 'stations concerned', the 'fighter units concenred' I have no reason to believe other that the high octane fuel was always meant to be supplied to select stations, while the others kept operated on the standard fuel of the RAF - 87 octane.

Glider already tried this line. The Forum and the thread is easily accessible, for registered AND approved members.

You can contact him on the forum in PM if he still reads it. Not much is happening there anymore.

Yes I asked Pips about them and tried the Australian archieve digital site. Few things are digitalised there unfortunately - one of them is named 'Proposal of securing 100 octane...'.

You have seen that one, I gave you the link, and IIRC you also got a heart attack when a British doc mentioned that one of their driving force for getting 100 octane is that German synth plants are so suitable for producing virtually any amount. :D So I am puzzled about why you ask if I had searched the site.

Because I have a life and only a very passing interest the RAF... and to be honest I've probably had plowed too many young bucks like you into the ground already to find particular excitement in it anymore. :D

Now, you see, I have done that before you even got to the University - no offense, but you should get a fair idea that I am actually into this stuff for, let's see 13 years now? - I have the above mentioned proposal of 100 octane fuel since March 2007. I know the AWM site, I have searched it. There's a lot of interesting stuff up there, but very little on 100 octane, at least, in an available form.

There are two practical problems:
- only a couple of random docs are digitized. I am quite sure there's a lot more WW2 100 octane in the AWM than the four or so papers it lists... some of the paper, like 'Proposals for...' is clearly copies of British papers.

- not all papers are entered into the registry. The paper recently shown and posted in this thread about the Australian attempt to buy/mix/steal/whatever 100/95/90 octane is only open since 2009 or so, at least as I recall from its sheet.

Archives often have only minimal staff and tons of papers, which is colossal work to register. When last time I was in the HTK archives, the registry was some DOS 6.0 based database program on something that resembled a 486 or an early 586. Do you even know what these things were? :D It illustrates the situation nicely - the online records are far from perfect, or accessible.

So if you think that it's just a case of browsing through the online archives, you will be disappointed. Some times questions like this just solve themselves in time.

Hi Kurfürst, I have some questions about the "Australian document".

Is the reason why it is included specifically stated in the document or is this a interpretation?
How do you know that the listed persons quoted from the report, where can these quotes be found?

Is the following quoted text a summary/interpretation by Pips or is this a actual quote of the document?

I never heard of a initial limitation of +9 boost and you just mentioned that this was already discussed. Can you give me a link to this discussion or source?

Your playing your game again Kurfurst only quoting one paper from a complete stream. However you believe that certain means 25%, so prove it. All you need to do is look at the strength of FC compare it to the combat reports/squadron records and you will have your 25%.

Pips clearly states
Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place
We know the War Cabinet didn't make those decisions so find out who did, simple request.

The other core to the Pips position is that there was a shortage of 100 Octane which caused the decision he believes the War Cabinet made. I ask you to find any reference to any paper from any official source that states that there was a shortage of 100 Octane for FC in 1940.

I realise this thread is a bit acrimonious but overall the content has been very interesting. The technical points have already been made but I am interested in the logic of is being argued.

Kurfurst, your argument appears to be that it cannot be proved definitively that all fighter stations during the BOB used 100 octane. On that narrow definition you are quite right, especially if you hold your own personal threshold of 'absolute proof' very high.

But based on the material presented in this thread, I still consider it likely that the BOB was fought largely if not completely with 100 octane. Almost all others in this thread, and also the previous very large thread on the same topic at another forum, seem to be of the same opinion. Perhaps someone in these threads at some point has stated that ALL RAF fighters were using 100 octane by the BOB without exception, but if you are arguing against that statement, you are presenting a variation of the straw man argument...refuting the most extreme position of your opponents instead of the typical position (and declaring victory!).

Neither using or not using 100 octane in the BOB is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or extra onus of proof on either side. Personally I could easily believe either of them, and have no initial bias that I am aware of. An extraordinary claim would be that the RAF had a jet squadron during the BOB, for example.

Typically when deciding between such competing ordinary claims, people examine what evidence exists and make a qualified judgement on the topic to move forward with. Seeing there is an large amount of anecdotal evidence for widespread use of 100 octane as reported in this thread, also a compelling historical reason to use 100 octane, and finally documented historic availability of 100 octane, it doesn't seem surprising to me your argument is not being taken up or accepted by others.

Going against the crowd is of course not a logical problem. If you argued against the existence of witches in the 1600s, you would be widely refuted but still correct (I hope!). But for every case like witch existance/nonexistance, there are many many more cases where the person arguing against informed peer belief is just mistaken. Of course your continuing arguing from your corner has lead to a lot of interesting technical information posted, and for that I thank you.

camber

And still, amongst all of his blather, KF has not presented any evidence whatsoever that the Pips memo actually exists, nor has he seen it himself except as a summary on a thread. Yet everyone who argues against KF has to provide solid, documentary evidence to back up their claim, otherwise it is dismissed out of hand.

even in the current german http://www.flugzeugclassic.de/zeitsc...ft=704&nav=621 issue, the talk about 100 octan for the RAF fighters in the BoB campaign. It seems everyone is rong lol....

;)