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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

@Glider about post 401.

I am afraid I cannot answer you in detail now due to the lack of time and won't be in the position to do so in the next two weeks.

On the other hand, I do not see any appearance new evidence or even argument in your post, as it only repeats the ones you have been telling us in the last 40 pages of discussion, and probably no undue haste should be spent in addressing these points again.

FYI I have looked over about 1500 pages of 'War Cabinet' and related files at Kew.
I could not find any decision about the alleged full conversion of Fighter Command to 100 octane in the War Cabinet Minutes.

Which tells me that the reason you can't find any reference to 100 octane 'conversion freeze' in the War Cabinet Minutes either is because it was discussed and decided at lower levels, in one of the apprx. 200 War Cabinet commitees - which still are the part of the War Cabinet.

For the number of Committees, please refer to the relevant page of the National Archives website which provides general information about the War Cabinet on the apropos providing 'open access' to the public via digital copies.

You have hit on a key item, I never claimed that the War Cabinet approved or decided on the roll out of 100 Octane fuel. It wasn't their decision.
The point is that this Pips clearly stated that the War Cabinet halted the roll out, that they restarted it later, they didn't it would be in the minutes. This paper if it exists is wrong. If you believe that someone else made the decision find it,, and explain why Pips made such an obvious mistake.

You have stated a number of times that you believe in his paper, that is your choice. I suggest you prove that any statment, he made on any topic on the paper is correct and I do mean any statement, your choice. Something, anything to confirm that any point is correct.

The choice is huge. Take the 25% being converted when the roll out stopped, with 75% of FC using 87 octane you should be able to find something. The Oil Committee who were responsible for the purchase storage and distribution must, if its true, mention it somewhere.

[Kurfürst]

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.