Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
It is not my theory. I don't know. It comes from what is considered the bible on the Spitfire's development, Morgan and Shacklady.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-His.../dp/0946219486
I just know nothing in this thread is convincing otherwise to make their conclusion invalid.
If you have a copy, look it up. If you don't and are interested in the Spitfire, get one. |
I have a copy of the book and, in many respects it is an excellent piece of work; the problem is that there are holes in their interpretation - which is relatively brief - of events in 1940.
For example they say that there were large numbers of tankers carrying 100 octane fuel lost in 1940, but there is no evidence cited in the book to back that up - it is a blanket statement.
In fact 78 (KF's figures) tankers were sunk - it is a high number, and terrible for those who died on them, but does not compare with the 1,151 which unloaded in Britain, as shown by a primary source document from the British War Cabinet
(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 -
my wording, not the cabinet paper)
Morgan and Shacklady are great at describing technical details of the Spitfire, which was their primary focus, but their interpretation of historical events not so much, because that is not their area of expertise.
You have critiqued Alfred Price in a similar way in another thread
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...Bf-109s-Forums - great author, enjoy reading what he says but he's not always accurate in specific details.
You don't know, even with the evidence that's been placed here - that's fine, if you want to place your entire faith in one book, that's up to you - historical research about events that happened in wartime Britain, or any other country
cannot come up with 100% answers. That goes for matters concerning the Luftwaffe. The houses of Parliament in London were bombed during the battle and there is the possibility that documents that people like Glider have spent hours patiently searching the archives for were destroyed.
Take an unblinkered look at the "evidence" posted by Kurfürst, who admits that he only has a very passing interest in the RAF, yet has for years has obsessively pursued a theory about the RAF not using 100 octane fuel, later modified to the RAF having some 100 octane fuel in the B of B - it is all based on a memo presented by Pips in another thread in 2004 which Kurfürst has never seen. What else has he
actually presented that stacks up? Nada - nothing, lots of abuse and scorn and lawyerly twisting of words and context. Other people have recognised that the sheer weight of evidence for the RAF using 100 Octane fuel extensively throughout the B of B is "overwhelming" - if you can't see it, I cannot help you.