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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Seadog

The fact remains that there are no published reports stating that Hurricane/Spitfires used anything but 100 octane during the BofB.

.

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.


Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Glider

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers. Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.


Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.

Note that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.

g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots notes or other station record that says that.

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

I completely agree with you.

[winny]

I think there's a way to prove the majority of bases were converted, but it'll be time consuming.

Cross reference the combat reports from the battle mentioning 12lb boost, with the squadron involved, to the movements of that squadron for that date. ie. where were they, a: stationed? and b: where they scrambled from? (not always the same station).

In the past I counted at least 30 squadrons refering to 12lb boost in combat reports between May - July 1940.. That's nearly half of all FC's squadrons.
Add that to the fact that there were only around 30-32 'operational' stations being used at the time, and the rotation system, it would suggest widespread use of 100 octane.


Also does anyone know if you could actually run a converted Merlin on 87 oct?

If it was a case of just swithcing fuels then why the modification to the engine?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

I think there's a way to prove the majority of bases were converted, but it'll be time consuming.

Cross reference the combat reports from the battle mentioning 12lb boost, with the squadron involved, to the movements of that squadron for that date. ie. where were they, a: stationed? and b: where they scrambled from? (not always the same station).

In the past I counted at least 30 squadrons refering to 12lb boost in combat reports between May - July 1940.. That's nearly half of all FC's squadrons.
Add that to the fact that there were only around 30-32 'operational' stations being used at the time, and the rotation system, it would suggest widespread use of 100 octane.


Also does anyone know if you could actually run a converted Merlin on 87 oct?

If it was a case of just swithcing fuels then why the modification to the engine?

Only a selection of squadrons were looked into so before you do this you would have to check every squadrons papers. You would also have to check every station for the fuel, a huge operation.
This is why I call the case a strong case but not a perfect case. The case for the limited use of 87 octane isn't supported by anything, making it a very weak case. They only have Pips posting which I have challenged with supporting documentation.
I would suggest that those who believe in the limited use of 100 octane should be asked to support that view. If they believe that Pips posting is the correct version of events then they need to support it and disprove the original documents that have been posted.

A converted Merlin could run on 87 octane but the performance would obviously be less. In a similar manner, a non converted merlin would run on 100 octane, but to get the performance gain, you need the fuel and the conversion

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

On the contrary there are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the RAF was equipped with 100 Octane for the BOB.

Indeed. There are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the Spitfire I was equipped with only four machine guns. I think we should 'correct' the current error in the sim that it has eight.

Originally Posted by Glider

However There is nothing published anywhere that says that there was a fuel shortage, that they were forced to use 87 octane on operaions. All Kurfurst has posted is a pre war paper that said 18 squadrons of fighters and 2 squadrons of twin engined bombers.

That is a lie. Excerpts from Spitfire the History, by far the most reliable Spitfire source was posted and it says that there were supply problems due to tanker sinkings by U boots.

Originally Posted by Glider

Plus an unsubstantiated posting from an Australian which
a) is riddled with errors.
b) is not supported by anything
c) that no one (not even Kurfurst) has seen
d) whee the archives that are supposed to hold it do not recognise.

Again, lies.

The paper is not riddled with errors.
It is supported by your own documentation
- 18 May 1940 paper showing only select units using 100 octane,
- fuel consumption papers showing large scale conversion did not start until late September,
- early operating Limits of Merlin III XII (+9 except for take off)
Pips seen it and gave reference to it.
The archieves recognise the paper, they have told you loud and clear that you have not asked for the paper with proper description.

So stop lying. Its showing desperation and dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Glider

Now the point of this was to ensure the people who are involved in the coding of the flight simulation were aware that if they followed the ideas put forward by Kurfurst were leaving themselves wide open for adverse comments.

The comments are not wide. Its you and another fanatic partisan arguing everyone else.

I believe the case put foward for the use of 100 Octane in FC by all the units is a strong case, not perfect but strong.

You said it rightly - it is your belief.

We have
a) the pre war intention, of 18 + 2 squadrons
b) the preparation in Dec 1939 for the issues to the FC command stations in two stages initially the First Instance (covering all the Operational Bases and those that were identified at that time that would become operational) and the second tranch (The Non Operational bases). This paper outlines the conditions to be met (stocks to be in place) before it can be used.
c) the request from the Chief of the Air Staff simple and without limitation for fighter units and Blenheim units to start using the 100 Octane. The Chief of the Air Staff doesn't ask permission from the Oil Committee which is headed up by a senior but junior to him Air Force Officer. In the the British Armed Forces orders from senior officers were and are still today, requests.
d) The Oil Committee getting this underway. The Magic 'Certain' word comes up at this stage. Do I wish he hadn't written certain, of course, but I believe that it will refer to the first instance i.e. the operational stations not all the stations in Fighter Command. But Please note, I knew that information would casue confusion and I could have left it out, but I didn't I gave all the information that I had to the forum.
d) A very clear path that shows without any ambiguity that all Blenheim units in No 2 Group had 100 Octane
e) Confusion in Fighter Command about the changes needed and the sorting out of those questions (Mr Tweedie)
f) The completion of the task by the oil committee and the note of thanks on the job done.ote that was all done by May. Even if there was a slight delay the BOB didn't start in anger until a few months later so time was on their side.
g) Finally we have in August permission given to use 100 Octane in all the commands.

re:

a, It actually say 18 + 2 Squadrons, until September 1940. Also that 800 000 tons of reserves need to be accumulated. In spring 1940 there were but 220 000 tons accumulated. Target was not met, period.
b, The document you speak of is a simply assessement of requirement. It mentions 21 Stations (out of ca. 60 operational in BoB).
Can you explain how these 21 Stations of December 1939 magically got 60 by July 1940? You have absolutely no evidence to that, in fact, you haven't find anything to prove your thesis.
c, It doesn't mention anywhere 'without limitation'. This is simply made up by you.
d, Given the lenght of discussion attached to it, you simply lie that the word certain only appeared in early 1940. It was present in all documents dealing with the subject. I've dealt with this in my earlier post, you've seen it, so stop lying.
e, You've got that right. Question arises though - if FC command did not even get the basics yet in spring of 1940, how would they plan for complete changeover - of which there's no sign yet in the papers..
f, All that was done by May is noting that select units were cleared for 100 octane used. You have admitted that nothing changed afterwards, it remained in use with select units.
g, Fuel consumption papers show the actual conversion process did not start until late September 1940.

All the above supported by consumption details, stock supplies, a good cross section of squadron notes, station notes and other documentation.

You have misquoted several papers as shown above and left out conviniently parts that did not fit your thesis.

As I said earlier, is it a perfect case no, but its a strong one with a lot of documentation to support it.

There is a case for select units being equipped in May 1940 with 100 octane fuel. There is no evidence for anything more.

YOU CANNOT DANCE AROUND THAT FACT, I am sorry.

What documentation have you got to say that 87 Octane was used in Operational missions during the BOB. None.

You keep asking that question, you keep answer, then you keep asking again. Who are you trying to bull here? Do you think if you ask the same question, all the uneasy evidence that were posted will just go away? Do you think that if you resort to Goebbels like tactics, repeating the same falsehood again and again, people will believe what you say? Is that the idea, David?

Can we say the complete file of these meetings, David? Why are you holding them back so fiercely? I think this is the best question in thread.

Some people doubt that all units didn't have 100 octane, so prove it, find any book, any article, any pilots story or other station record that says that.

It was already done. You own papers prove that 100 octane was issued to select units/stations. So what are you keeping arguing?

I will review Pps posting again with supporting docs as that seems to be key to the anti 100 Octane Brigade and then leave you to it. I can add nothing more.

Let me summarize what you have posted so far.

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

Why are you so "this is a lie" ? Surley you mean it's incorrect. Your bias shines through when you start accusing people of lying.

Combat reports mentioning 12lb and home station (therefore 100 octane must be present at station)

74 Squadron 24th May 1940 - Hornchurch & Manston - 100 octane
54 Squadron 25th May 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane
19 Squadron 26th May 1940 - Duxford - 100 octane
611 Squadron 2nd June 1940 - ? (Catterick?) or Duxford
610 Squadron 12th June 1940 - Biggin Hill - 100 octane
41 Squadron 19th June 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane

Looks like 4 stations must have had 100 octane in May/June (Keep in mind that these are just the combat reports I've found, need more)

No new squadrons appear till August when first new references to 12lb start to appear..
for 64, 603, 602 and 234 squadrons
In September more appear
152, 66, 72, 609, 222.

I haven't checked the stations for August / September, yet

Anyone know of any good BoB combat report sites?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

Why are you so "this is a lie" ? Surley you mean it's incorrect.

I do not mean his position. He has an opinion, which is may be inccorect, but he has the right to be believe it.

However if someone pretends he hadn't seen the posts in this (and other) threads and pretend they do not exist, and keep posting that has not seen anything, it is something different. He knows they exists, he is aware of the points taken in them.

To say that nothing was put forward when it was done is a lie intend to mislead those who did not read the thread, pure and simple. There's no reason to call this incorrect. To say for example that nothing proves that Pips was right about the late September 1940 conversion, when I have shown David the fuel deliveries at least three times now, showing exactly what Pips notes, and he quickly jumps over it and fails to comment, I will not say he is incorrect when he again starts saying the same thing again a few pages later like if nothing happened.

It would be a different matter if he would say he does not agree with my conclusions, but he keeps making these foggy references to "hundreds books" etc. David is in pure denial and now he is becoming desperate and starting to use underhand tactics instead of putting forward a good arguement, and good sources.

To put it blunt, all he does in the 20 or so pages is to threaten to developers that they will be considered donkeys if they do not follow his opinion, and post the same two papers in which he reads something that goes to directly against the meaning of the words on the paper. Apparantly that just about nobody agrees with his interpretation of the May 18 and previous papers, which clearly say select squadrons, this does not stop him from keeping saying he has seen nothing, and keep telling everyone nobody has managed to prove him wrong, imply to everyone that the Australian paper is a lie. At the same time he simply does not asnwer the questions put to him. That's desperate.

Originally Posted by winny

Combat reports mentioning 12lb and home station (therefore 100 octane must be present at station)

74 Squadron 24th May 1940 - Hornchurch & Manston - 100 octane
54 Squadron 25th May 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane
19 Squadron 26th May 1940 - Duxford - 100 octane
611 Squadron 2nd June 1940 - ? (Catterick?) or Duxford
610 Squadron 12th June 1940 - Biggin Hill - 100 octane
41 Squadron 19th June 1940 - Hornchurch - 100 octane

Looks like 4 stations must have had 100 octane in May/June (Keep in mind that these are just the combat reports I've found, need more)

No new squadrons appear till August when first new references to 12lb start to appear..
for 64, 603, 602 and 234 squadrons
In September more appear
152, 66, 72, 609, 222.

I haven't checked the stations for August / September, yet

Anyone know of any good BoB combat report sites?

Now this is GOOD analytical work! Check out the Grunch's post earlier, I think he did the same. Actually if you manage to finish this work, would you be as kind as sharing this collection in the same format? Ie. Sqn - date - base. I can look up the base if you give me the two other particulars.

I think this approach is the most useful, as this gives the best idea to identify 100 octane Stations. Ie. 74, 54 and 41 Sqns all reported 100 octane use, and all of them were at the time based in Hornchurch.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Indeed. There are a number of papers, book, both technical and historical that mention that the Spitfire I was equipped with only four machine guns. I think we should 'correct' the current error in the sim that it has eight..

Name one
.

That is a lie. Excerpts from Spitfire the History, by far the most reliable Spitfire source was posted and it says that there were supply problems due to tanker sinkings by U boots..

It was a concern of course it was losses were serious but more got through than were sunk and in the May to August period stocks still rose.

.

Again, lies.

The paper is not riddled with errors.
It is supported by your own documentation
- 18 May 1940 paper showing only select units using 100 octane,
- fuel consumption papers showing large scale conversion did not start until late September,
- early operating Limits of Merlin III XII (+9 except for take off)
Pips seen it and gave reference to it.
The archieves recognise the paper, they have told you loud and clear that you have not asked for the paper with proper description.

So stop lying. Its showing desperation and dishonesty..

-The paper 18th may is in direct responce to an unabigious request from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units. I believe that the reference to certain is the stations to be stocked with 100 octane in the first instance. If you believe otherwise provide some documentation, its a simple request and one that you would insist on.
- The Fuel consuption figures do show an increase in 100 octane in September. This is due to the Other commands starting to transfer from 87 Octane to 100 Octane after permission was given in August for which documentation evidence was provided. If you believe otherwise provide your evidence.
-The Archives did not recognise the paper when I asked for it, they did not recognise the paper when the Wiki editors asked for it and last I heard from you, you have NEVER asked for it. All you need to do therefore is ask for it and post it when you find it. You know I can provide evidence for all these requests so once again, provide some evidence to support your statement.
- If Pips has seen it then please provide some evience as no one else has seen it.

You said it rightly - it is your belief.

Correct it is and my belief is supported by documentation. All we are asking is for you to provide your documentation to support your belief

a, It actually say 18 + 2 Squadrons, until September 1940. Also that 800 000 tons of reserves need to be accumulated. In spring 1940 there were but 220 000 tons accumulated. Target was not met, period.
b, The document you speak of is a simply assessement of requirement. It mentions 21 Stations (out of ca. 60 operational in BoB).
Can you explain how these 21 Stations of December 1939 magically got 60 by July 1940? You have absolutely no evidence to that, in fact, you haven't find anything to prove your thesis.
c, It doesn't mention anywhere 'without limitation'. This is simply made up by you.
d, Given the lenght of discussion attached to it, you simply lie that the word certain only appeared in early 1940. It was present in all documents dealing with the subject. I've dealt with this in my earlier post, you've seen it, so stop lying.
e, You've got that right. Question arises though - if FC command did not even get the basics yet in spring of 1940, how would they plan for complete changeover - of which there's no sign yet in the papers..
f, All that was done by May is noting that select units were cleared for 100 octane used. You have admitted that nothing changed afterwards, it remained in use with select units.
g, Fuel consumption papers show the actual conversion process did not start until late September 1940.

a It does say 18 plus 2 but this is a pre war plan which also asy that the number of squadrons can be amended depending on the fuel available. War changes priorities and the Target of 800,000 tons was never met at any time during the war but it didn't stop us using this and other fuels.
b The document is more than an assesment. It is a clear statemnt that the oerational stations were to be treated as a first tranch and a second set of non operational stations were to be treated as a second tranch. Hence my belief that in the paper when the magic certain word was used it refered to the first tranch.
What we don't know is how many other stations were equipped in the roll out, was it the 21 or was it all the operational stations. What we do know is that in May squadrons in France who do not appear on the list were equiped with 100 Octane and in Norway so its my belief that the fuel was issued as a normal supply item. If not can you explain why these units were equipped?
c The Request from the Chief of the Air Staff was for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 Octane. It didn't say some, or certain, or by station, squadron or Group. It was a blanket request without limitation.
d My posting 177 and 178 deal with this question
e I agree that the confusion was unexpected but the paper trail shows that the issue was adressed and the roll out didn't slow down while the discussion was underway
f I admit that the supply was to all the units in the first tranch. As I said in (B) we know that additional units were issued with 100 Octane such as those in France and Norway. Its my belief that all operation stations had the 100 Octane and its mprobable that by the time July August arrived those in Tranch 2 the non operational units would have been stocked but cannot prove that to be the case.
g Fuel Consupmtion paper prove that in September the use of 100 Octane fuel increased as the other operational commands started to use 100 Octane. They also prove that for June to August approx 10,000 tons a month were being used up. Have you tried to work out how many flights those 125 aircraft mentioned by Pips would have to do to get through 10,000 tons a month?
Have you anything to support the 125 aircraft figure

You have misquoted several papers as shown above and left out conviniently parts that did not fit your thesis.

Name them, simple request and I will post them. Also supply information that supports your theory another simple request

There is a case for select units being equipped in May 1940 with 100 octane fuel. There is no evidence for anything more.

YOU CANNOT DANCE AROUND THAT FACT, I am sorry.

I haven't tried to. The select being the 21 stations to be equipped in the first instance plus the ones that we know were equipped such as France and Norway.
Its my belief that the other operational stations would also have been equipped but recognise that I don't have any paper to support that. Just the indication that if the Operational stations in France were equipped in May I find it hard to believe that the other operational units in UK wouldn't have been.

You keep asking that question, you keep answer, then you keep asking again. Who are you trying to bull here? Do you think if you ask the same question, all the uneasy evidence that were posted will just go away? Do you think that if you resort to Goebbels like tactics, repeating the same falsehood again and again, people will believe what you say? Is that the idea, David?

Can we say the complete file of these meetings, David? Why are you holding them back so fiercely? I think this is the best question in thread.

You have what I have and nothing is being held back, nothing. The only question I have asked you is to supply anything that supports your comments which is reasionable as you demand a lot from others.

With luck I aim to get to the NA next week. Tell me which meeing you want and I will copy everything for that meeting. The notes for the meeting, the meeting notes, actions arising and any additional papers. The same goes for the War Committee meeting. Name which meeting you want and I will copy everything, I am not going to copy all the notes for all the meetings.
I cannot be fairer than that.

In return you get a copy of the Pips papers how does that sound?

Let me summarize what you have posted so far.

That as of May 18 1940, select Fighter and Bomber stations were supplied with 100 octane.
Despite numerous request, you have refused to show what has happened after May 1940, when Pips showed that the conversion stopped.
That in early August 1940 100 octane use was authorized for all aircraft.
That this wasn't even started to be implemented until late September 1940.

Some obvious points on this.
Select fighter stations are as a minimum the first tranch 21 stations plus those we know were equipped France and Norway
Select Bomber equals all Blenheim units in No 2 Group posting 122 and 134 cover this
Pips hasn't showed anything. Its an unsubstantiated posting and the reason for his statment doesn't hold water
Its all operational aircraft in all commands not the rest of fighter command

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Name one
.
It was a concern of course it was losses were serious but more got through than were sunk and in the May to August period stocks still rose.

.
-The paper 18th may is in direct responce to an unabigious request from the Chief of the Air Staff for fighters and Blenheim units. I believe that the reference to certain is the stations to be stocked with 100 octane in the first instance. If you believe otherwise provide some documentation, its a simple request and one that you would insist on.
- The Fuel consuption figures do show an increase in 100 octane in September. This is due to the Other commands starting to transfer from 87 Octane to 100 Octane after permission was given in August for which documentation evidence was provided. If you believe otherwise provide your evidence.
-The Archives did not recoginse the paper when I asked for it, they did not recognise the paper when the Wiki editors asked for it and last I heard from you, you have NEVER asked for it. All you need to do therefore is ask for it and post it when you find it. You know I can provide evidence for all these requests so once again, provide some evidence to support your statement.
- If Pips has seen it then please provide some evience as no one else has seen it.
Correct it is and my belief is supported by documentation. All we are asking is for you to provide your documentation to support your belief

a It does say 18 plus 2 but this is a pre war plan which also asy that the number of squadrons can be amended depending on the fuel available. War changes priorities and the Target of 800,000 tons was never met at any time during the war but it didn't stop us using this and other fuels.
b The document is more than an assesment. It is a clear statemnt that the oerational stations were to be treated as a first tranch and a second set of non operational stations were to be treated as a second tranch. Hence my belief that in the paper when the magic certain word was used it refered to the first tranch.
What we don't know is how many other stations were equipped in the roll out, was it the 21 or was it all the operational stations. What we do know is that in May squadrons in France who do not appear on the list were equiped with 100 Octane and in Norway so its my belief that the fuel was issued as a normal supply item. If not can you explain why these units were equipped?
c The Request from the Chief of the Air Staff was for fighters and Blenheim units to be equipped with 100 Octane. It didn't say some, or certain, or by station, squadron or Group. It was a blanket request without limitation.
d My posting 177 and 178 deal with this question
e I agree that the confusion was unexpected but the paper trail shows that the issue was adressed and the roll out didn't slow down while the discussion was underway
f I admit that the supply was to all the units in the first tranch. As I said in (B) we know that additional units were issued with 100 Octane such as those in France and Norway. Its my belief that all operation stations had the 100 Octane and its mprobable that by the time July August arrived those in Tranch 2 the non operational units would have been stocked but cannot prove that to be the case.
g Fuel Consupmtion paper prove that in September the use of 100 Octane fuel increased as the other operational commands started to use 100 Octane. They also prove that for June to August approx 10,000 tons a month were being used up. Have you tried to work out how many flights those 125 aircraft mentioned by Pips would have to do to get through 10,000 tons a month?
Have you anything to support the 125 aircraft figure


Name them, simple request and I will post them. Also supply information that supports your theory another simple request




I haven't tried to. The select being the 21 stations to be equipped in the first instance plus the ones that we know were equipped such as France and Norway.
Its my belief that the other operational stations would also have been equipped but recognise that I don't have any paper to support that. Just the indication that if the Operational stations in France were equipped in May I find it hard to believe that the other operational units in UK wouldn't have been.




You have what I have and nothing is being held back, nothing. The only question I have asked you is to supply anything that supports your comments which is reasionable as you demand a lot from others.

With luck I aim to get to the NA next week. Tell me which meeing you want and I will copy everything for that meeting. The notes for the meeting, the meeting notes, actions arising and any additional papers. The same goes for the War Committee meeting. Name which meeting you want and I will copy everything, I am not going to copy all the notes for all the meetings.
I cannot be fairer than that.

In return you get a copy of the Pips papers how does that sound?

Some obvious points on this.
Select fighter stations are as a minimum the first tranch 21 stations plus those we know were equipped France and Norway
Select Bomber equals all Blenheim units in No 2 Group posting 122 and 134 cover this
Pips hasn't showed anything. Its an unsubstantiated posting and the reason for his statment doesn't hold water
Its all operational aircraft in all commands not the rest of fighter command

Interesting, that 21 stations figure. That would mean the majority of squadrons were converted as a lot of squadrons had a home base and a forward base

Does the NA at Kew have squadron maintenence records? Campaign diaries?
I've enquired about combat reports from May '40 to September '40 but there are hundreds of them..

I've mentioned it before but does anyone know if the Merlin conversion was one way? ie. once converted it would not work on 87oct. The reluctance to convert until stocks were high enough would suggest that it was a one way conversion. Otherwise it wouldn't have mattered.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

Does the NA at Kew have squadron maintenence records? Campaign diaries?
I've enquired about combat reports from May '40 to September '40 but there are hundreds of them..
.

It should do and as mentioned in the posting I am going to see what I can find. The one area that I have not been able to identify is a level below the Oil Committee. There should be someone somewhere who was responsible for implementing the change, they were too senior.

The Holy Grail is some form of status report that mght say stations A have ben equipped, stations B are being equipped and stations C will be done by such and such a date.

That would finish it off once and for all