Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed by Kurfurst, sometimes very annoyed.
Deflection is an art form, Kurfurst's a master.
There are forums all over the place with threads about this subject and Kurfurst is present in all of them.
The subject gets bogged down in the supply issue, it's a red herring.
The whole argument seems to hinge on the 'select or certain stations'
There is no definite definition of certain stations so again it's a red herring.
If the question is 'Were the RAF using 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain' the answer is a definite yes. It's just how many.
To go back to the 1938 doccument, written at a time when Britain were in the process of rearmament, not war, is another deflection.
To say that that doccument is relevant to a battle that took place 2 years later, under a different government is wrong. Unless a doccument is post the invasion of Poland then its frankly irrelevant.
Nobody expected the war to start in 39. Most were gearing up for 42.
I can prove to anyone that up to 30 squadrons used 100 octane during The battle.
At the very least 4 at dunkirk
At the very least another 6 in June. That's 30% of the total number of FC sqns at the time (around 330 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires).
Kurfurst has never quantified his argument. No numbers for squadrons.
|