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

[Glider]

Kurfurst
You are linking two totally different paper trails as if they were one.

The fourth paper that you have added is covered in my positing 150 and 172.

The fifth paper covers the equipment of Bomber Command with 100 Octane. The four stations mentioned are those that have to have the 87 octane fuel removed and they are the stations that were authorised to be 100% equipped with 100 Octane. The fighter command section is the removal of 87 octane from each fighter station concerned.

The last paper confirms that the fuel transfer has been completed concerned.

Concerned I take to mean that some will not need all the fuel removed. I would expect the large sector stations to keep some 87 Octane in a similar manner to Bomber Command and the Blenheims of No 2 group. The smaller stations would need to have the fuel removed as done for four stations in No 2 Group. Its worth remembering that some units started using 100 Octane in Feb 1940, before these decisions for a complete roll out were made so to some degree it was already out there and in use.

Clearly you believe that this is a limitation to the roll out, I have given my explanation and can prove it to a degree by supporting the use of 100 Octane in Feb, plus it follows the same principle as used in No 2 Group. Far from perfect I agree but better than nothing.

Can you support your contention that its a limitation to the scale of the roll out?

So back to the first question I ever asked you, what is certain? Which units, which bases

I also take this opportunity to post a War Cabinet Paper that I copied. Its not of interest but it might help you calm your concerns that I never went to the NA or saw the papers.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

So back to the first question I ever asked you, what is certain? Which units, which bases

I direct you to post no. 42 by The Grunch:

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Cross-referencing references to +12lbs boost in combat reports with the dates that the squadron involved were stationed at certain airfields we can see that 100 octane fuel was available for certain at the following airfields from at least the following months:

RAF North Weald (11 Group) in February
RAF Drem (13 Group) in February
RAF Rochford (11 Group) in March
RAF Digby (12 Group) in March
RAF Hawkinge (11 Group) in May
RAF Hornchurch (11 Group) in May
RAF Tangmere (11 Group) in May
RAF Duxford (12 Group) in May
RAF Gravesend (11 Group) in June
RAF Catterick (12 Group) in June
RAF Biggin Hill (11 Group) in July
RAF Kenley (11 Group) in August
RAF Northolt (11 Group) in August
RAF Westhampnett (11 Group) in August
RAF Middle Wallop (10 Group) in August
RAF Leconfield (12 Group) in August
RAF Croydon (11 Group) in September
RAF Warmwell (10 Group) in September

[Glider]

I need to do some work that will take me until Wed Morning, don't take this a a sign of going away I will respond in detail to any questions when I am back.

However, to make no misunderstanding you believe that Pips posting with no documents is a valid source and you believe that they are accurate.

[Glider]

Well Kurfurst, in your posting 179 you did ask for evidence of a change of plan and there is no doubt that you have had the evidence of such a change.
Which from a sources point of view, just leaves you with PIPS posting which most people would not consider a source, just an unsupported posting.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Well Kurfurst, in your posting 179 you did ask for evidence of a change of plan and there is no doubt that you have had the evidence of such a change.

In what way there is an evidence of the change of plan? A request is not a change in plans, though I would not rule out at all or most of these 21 Stations were eventually approved.

The problem is of coure there were a total of 51 fighter bases (19 Sector stations, 32 Fighter stations) from which British fighters operated during BoB.
And up to 21 out of 51 that may or may not have been approved is less then half in any case.

Originally Posted by Glider

Which from a sources point of view, just leaves you with PIPS posting which most people would not consider a source, just an unsupported posting.

Well if we look at it that way its

Pips sourced posting,
the fact that the 18 May 1940 and previous papersspeaks that only select Stations are supplied with 100 octane,
the fact that you admitted that this was not revised,
and the fact that the vast majotity of the fuel consumed was steadily 87 octane until the end of September 1940 (in agreement with Pips)
Spitfire II and other manuals listing both 87 and 100 octane ratings

vs.

your unsupported mere belief.

Do you have the post May 1940 files or only the ones you have posted? You seem to tend to evade that question constantly.

[Glider]

I will do this justice tomorrow but in the meantime

a) are you confirming that what PIP posted is your belief as to what happened
b) where you say I admitted that this was not revised, can you point me to the posting.

re (b) I am not doubting you, I just want to avoid a misunderstanding as a lot has been said.

Speak to you tomorrow

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I will do this justice tomorrow but in the meantime

a) are you confirming that what PIP posted is your belief as to what happened

It seems to me a reasonable and honest and referenced account based on archival documentations as to what happened from someone who does not seem to have a stake involved. It also fits well into the papers you posted. In short, yes.

b) where you say I admitted that this was not revised, can you point me to the posting.

David I've asked you literally dozens of times if you know of a paper that had revised the 18 May (and preceeding) decision about select/concerned/certain, ie. limited number of Squadrons being involved. You have never asnwered to that, that's just as good as admittence in my book.

In all the documentation Neil and you publicly provided, there's a huge gap between May and August 1940. And let's be frank about it, both of you are fanatic about the subject, and that's exactly the timeframe Pips was talking about YEARS before you found that paper.

That's some food for thought isn't it. I am pretty sure of two things: that you weren't running out of battery in your camera when you got there, and if it would revise the 18 May paper in a way positive to you and say that all Sqns gonna use 100 octane, it would be posted all over the place.

See ya tomorrow.

[Glider]

Thanks for that, I must go now but will be in touch