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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Note what I said:
Nor did I say anywhere only 100 Octane fuel was issued. And where are KF's primary and secondary sources? The main primary sources "presented" by KF are a mysterious Australian/Beaverbrook paper which no-one apart from KF and "Pip" can find (The Australian National Archives themselves cannot find it), and some pre-war planning papers.

Small alteration. KF has never found or when I last heard, even looked for this paper. The reason he gave for not looking was that he doesn't live in Australia and he was too busy.

Posting 92 in attached thread
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-7.html

PS Its worth noting that the key to this Pips was a decision made by the War Cabinet to stop roll out of 100 octane. Earlier in this thread I did give KF the file nos for the War Cabinet minutes to look at on line, so he could confirm the Pips theory. I would be interested to see if he has done this easy, available and free basic check and let us know what it said.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Posting 92 in attached thread
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...a-20108-7.html

And another: Glider never looked for the paper, he sent an email to the Archieve's staff without giving any reference. The Archive did not reply that they don't have it, they have replied that without Glider giving them a correct reference, they cannot find it. A world of difference I guess, just to straight out the spin our friend NZTyphoon is putting on it.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And another: Glider never looked for the paper, he sent an email to the Archieve's staff without giving any reference. The Archive did not reply that they don't have it, they have replied that without Glider giving them a correct reference, they cannot find it. A world of difference I guess, just to straight out the spin our friend NZTyphoon is putting on it.

A couple of points:-
1) In normal debate the person who is relying on a paper is expected to produce thier evidence
2) Clearly Kurfurst hasn't tried looking for the paper
3) Also he hasn't looked up the War Cabinet Minutes which are available and would support his case. I should add that I have looked at these both on line and in the original paper copies and no decision of this was made and it was not even discussed by the War Cabinet. If Pips said that the War Cabinet made the decision then they would have made the decision. You would not exepect the War Cabinet to do the research but they did make decisions or were informed of decisions, and 100 Octane was never mentioned.
4 ) as for his assertion that I didn't ask the following is the reply I received from the Australian War Records, which gives a reference for the question I raised.

Australian War Memorial Research Centre
ReQuest

Response to your question with Question #: RCIS20344


Your question is:
I am trying to find a copy of the following Document which I have been told is held in your archives.

Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And Its Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War

The first question is of course do you have a copy of this document and secondly if you do what is the process to try and obtain a copy.
Our response is:
Dear David,

Thank you for your enquiry to the Research Centre of the Australian War Memorial.

I have searched our books database (which includes journals), RecordSearch (which is the National Archives of Australia's search engine for our Official Records) and our general search field in the hope that your text may be picked up as a reference in an online article without success.

Do you have any more information about the record? Is it a journal article or a monograph? If you can think of any other identifying markers, please email our Publishing and Digitised team at pub&dig@awm.gov.au A curator will search again for you.

I'm sorry I couldn't help you.

Kind regards,
I

Kurfurst is aware of this and I invite him to add anything he knows to help track this paper down.

PS Kurfurst, I believe you owe NZ an apology for saying he was lying about the Australian Archives not having the paper

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

PS Its worth noting that the key to this Pips was a decision made by the War Cabinet to stop roll out of 100 octane. Earlier in this thread I did give KF the file nos for the War Cabinet minutes to look at on line, so he could confirm the Pips theory. I would be interested to see if he has done this easy, available and free basic check and let us know what it said.

I have checked as much as I could, there are however gazillion pages of several cabinets, as what you (and Pips) call "War Cabinet minutes" are actually covering a broad range of aspects, and apparently the work was split between several committees for fuel, ammunition, air, production and similar.

Now, as far as the documentary evidence goes, the only relevant paper you've produced so far is the May 19th meeting's summary, and that says some fighter and some Blenheim Squadrons, which is what it reads. As we all know this is the paper that has been doctored on the Mike Williams site to have the meaning 'all'.

If that decision was not overruled by later ones, then it was some fighter and some Blenheim Squadrons it is. There is no evidence of it (yet?) that it was overruled.

You were certainly unable to show any such decision, though I recall that you have claimed Committee on 29th June or 10th August supposedly overruled this. I have asked many times to supply these papers instead of giving your view of them, but you always evade that for some reason.

And for some reason you are refusing to post files referring to the meeting after May 1940, which is what the Beaverbrook paper covers, namely, that any further expansion was halted and frozen.

Simply to put, you can argue until you are blue in the face about if the Beaverbook paper can be found again or not (I think though I may have a single page from it, as the context seems very similiar, which was posted many many years ago on Ring's site).

But its all irrelevant since the only British decision presented says some fighter and some Blenheim Squadrons, and it takes an amazing level of spin - or as some solved the question, doctoring - making 'some' to mean 'all'.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I have checked as much as I could, there are however gazillion pages of several cabinets, as what you (and Pips) call "War Cabinet minutes" are actually covering a broad range of aspects, and apparently the work was split between several committees for fuel, ammunition, air, production and similar.

Now, as far as the documentary evidence goes, the only relevant paper you've produced so far is the May 19th meeting's summary, and that says some fighter and some Blenheim Squadrons, which is what it reads. As we all know this is the paper that has been doctored on the Mike Williams site to have the meaning 'all'.

If that decision was not overruled by later ones, then it was some fighter and some Blenheim Squadrons it is. There is no evidence of it (yet?) that it was overruled.

You were certainly unable to show any such decision, though I recall that you have claimed Committee on 29th June or 10th August supposedly overruled this. I have asked many times to supply these papers instead of giving your view of them, but you always evade that for some reason.

And for some reason you are refusing to post files referring to the meeting after May 1940, which is what the Beaverbrook paper covers, namely, that any further expansion was halted and frozen.

Simply to put, you can argue until you are blue in the face about if the Beaverbook paper can be found again or not (I think though I may have a single page from it, as the context seems very similiar, which was posted many many years ago on Ring's site).

But its all irrelevant since the only British decision presented says some fighter and some Blenheim Squadrons, and it takes an amazing level of spin - or as some solved the question, doctoring - making 'some' to mean 'all'.

There is no Beaverbrook paper. After May the subject of roll out of 100 Octane was never mentioned again by the oil committee until May 1944 when the RAF had supply difficulties due to the volume being used in the preparation of the Invasion. I have been through the entire file and its a big one.

I should add that I have never said that 29th June or the 10th August made any decisons overuling anything. Tell me where I did and I will apologise and go into the records and copy the papers.