Hurricane vs.Bf-110

[Glider]

Certainly a just as wishful claim as the one that all RAF fighters were using 100 octane fuel in the BoB.

Kurfurst I was only looking at the site that you gave me. One important thing is that I was using the servicable aircraft number as thats the important one. It reflects whats available for action.

Or are you saying that a drop from
from 856 Operational 109's and 906 pilots at the end of June
down to 586 operational aircraft and 711 ready pilots at the end of December doesn't represent a significant fall?

Looking at the strenght reports, on 28.09.40 (a day after some very heavy combat and losses btw) the LW day fighters reported 920 fighters on strenght and 917 pilots.

However there were 711 planes operational down from 856 at the end of June which is a decent drop,

On 28 December 1940 they reported 829 fighters and 915 pilots. The number of fighter pilots remained unchanged compared to September, in fact many were back to Germany and on leave, while the units were prepearing to receive the new 109Fs. This explains the low servicibility numbers for the end of December, that is effected by some units reporting 0 servicable aircraft, ie.

Stab/JG51, I./JG51, II./JG51, III./JG51 curiously reporting 0 Bf 109Es ready for operation out of the 46 present, while II./JG54, that was almost on full strenght with 35 aircraft reported again with 0 mission capable aircraft. Which is more than just odd. Not one, not half of them, none.

Obviously these units were in the process of rest and refit, and units were busy creating their own operational training units, to which they transferred to old aircraft, and awaiting the new 109Fs.

Fair point

On the 29 March 1941, they were reporting 1104 aircraft present, with much of the frontline strenght now consisting of the new 109Fs, with much of the Emils retired, and the last batches of them running out of the production line, and 1204 pilots.

However in March 1941 they still only had 814 Servicable Aircraft, less than in June 1940, even less than Sept 39. Not impressive.

What isn't at doubt that originally only 16+2 Squadrons were meant to receive 100 octane fuel. What is at doubt how many actually received it in the end.

The paper trail is clear and well documented I don't know how you can cling on to such a fantasy. However can I ask where you got the 16+2 squadrons from in the first place as they are not mentioned anywhere.

A slightly different point where I would like some assistance. There is always a big debate over the fighter losses and combat results but less on the bombers who were the targets in the first place.
Have you any sources, either books or sites that I can look at as I am finding it more difficult than expected. I have the details on Bomber Command, its the German side I am having difficulty with. Any help would be appreciated

 

[Hop]

Luftwaffe sorties and losses during the BoB according to Hooton, Eagle in Flames:

Take the attribution of losses to "accidents" with a pinch of salt. Note how the daytime "accident" rate for bombers is often much higher than the night accident rate. I suspect bombers lost to unknown causes are being listed as "accidents".

 

[Glider]

Hop
Thanks for the figures, appreciated

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:" So, when say Squadron X reported the use of 100 octane on say 10th August, and then was re-deployed to the North say on 14th of August, the aircraft remained as they were and only the crew travelled North; they were replaced by the crew of say Y Squadron, using the very same planes left behind by X Squadrons, they reported a few day later using 100 octane fuel, too."

Have you source for that, first time I hear on that system, the few sqns whose operations I know flew their old a/c to south and the sqn they replaced flew their remaining fighters to north. So both sqns kept their fighters. For ex. when 603 Sqn replaced 65 Sqn at Hornchurch and they were in transit at same time because 65 landed at Turnhouse in Scotland one hour after 603 had departed from there. And next day 603 was in alert, ie readiness to scramble from Hornchuch.

Juha

 

[Hop]

So, when say Squadron X reported the use of 100 octane on say 10th August, and then was re-deployed to the North say on 14th of August, the aircraft remained as they were and only the crew travelled North; they were replaced by the crew of say Y Squadron, using the very same planes left behind by X Squadrons, they reported a few day later using 100 octane fuel, too.

That's just another Kurfurst flight of fancy. Aircraft remained with squadrons most of the time. You can check that with serial numbers and squadron codes quite easily.

There's actually an example on Mike Williams page very close to the dates Kurfurst gives. On 8th August 41 squadron were at Hornchurch, using 100 octane fuel. By 15th August they were at Catterick, Yorkshire, in the north of England, still using 100 octane fuel.

 

[ponsford]

>>Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

>We know for a fact that 100 octane allowed boost pressure to increase from 6.25 to 12 lbs, not 9.

Yes Hop, I also noticed right off that the boost inconsistency seriously called into question the credibility of that quoted passage especially when bearing in mind the +12 clearance document dated March 20, 1940 ("The emergency use of higher boost pressures up to + 12 lb/sq. in. is now available for short periods by operation of the modified boost control cut-out") and Dowding's statement from August 1, 1940 that ("The use of the automatic boost cut out control enables + 12 lbs. per sq. in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstances demand it. Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion"), not to mention +12 in all those combat reports and pilot's accounts. Was someone really trying to pass that off as some official document? I'm not sure that it looks like the author was intentionally misleading but if so it would be a weak attempt at a hoax, especially giving the enormous quantity and quality of evidence that draws a completely different picture. Ah, he probably just didn't know better and made a mistake.

Juha: That rings a bell. I have books by Gray Deere from 54 Squadron where they mention flying their aircraft from Hornchurch to Cattererick while 41 Squadron swapped places with them using their own aircraft, both during the Dunkirk battle and the subsequent Battle of Britain.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Please Read!

Hop and Kurfurst and anyone else involved:

This is a great debate with lots of information, however it better remain peaceful. If you two can not keep it peaceful, you will both go on a little vacation from the site.

Is this understood?

 

[Kurfürst]

OK, only you do understand ALL FC airfields had switched over to 100 octane, don't you?

Where is the evidence?

From the 7th December 1939 memo:

It goes on to list operational stations.

No, it doesn't list 'operational stations', it mentions 18 operational stations that are proposed to be supplied with 100 octane. Not all. Just 18 (later they appear to have added 2-3 stations to that list though).

Hmmm... weren't the plan was to equip 16+2 Squadrons with 100 octane fuel. Of course it was. Coincidence? No.

It is a proposal in December 1939, and we do not know how much of it was actually materialized, yet you state it as a fact that not only these stations were supplied with 100 octane fuel, but in fact all the others.

Pure fantasy, without evidence. Of course you have been stating the same for the last 8 years, without evidence, just as you keep repeating it now.

So all lower grades of fuel were to be removed from operational stations, and replaced with 100 octane.

No, it was only proposed to be removed from eighteen selected fighter stations.

How much clearer can it be?

Its quite clear actually. The RAF wanted to equip 16 single engined fighter Squadrons and 2 Blenheim Squadrons with 100 octane fuel.

There is no mention in any document that on the subject this quantity was revised.

You claim it was revised, and all Fighter Squadrons were supplied with it, but you cannot produce ANY evidence to that.

Yeah?

Why are his facts so badly out, then?

They are not. Yours are, OTOH, and are without evidence.

Why, after more than 4 years, has he yet to post anything to back his claims up?

Probably because in the last four years you have never actually asked him to do so, you only keep spreading your accusations behind his back..

And, as he is generally considered to be credible person without a personal agenda in the matter, nobody actually to doubted his word.

He has given his references, and that satisfies everyone, well, everyone except Neil, Mikey, and Hoppie. But I guess the reason for that is obvious, isn't it?

Let's look at some of the "facts":

We know the stocks as at 3rd September were 153,000 tons from Gavin Bailey. So we are expected to believe 150,000 tons arrived in the 3 months before war broke out? An average of 50,000 tons a month

I think you don't actually understand the difference between facts and speculation. Yours above is just specualtion, and even for that, its a poor one, as it leads to nowhere.

It proves nothing, except that you have doubts. Feel free to have them.

We know for a fact that 100 octane allowed boost pressure to increase from 6.25 to 12 lbs, not 9.

We know for a fact that you are making this up and in fact documentation shows that at some time, +9 lbs was the limit for the Combat regime, even with 100 octane fuel. Take a look at the Spitfire II manual below. It says all out level, 5 mins limit, +9lbs, 3000 rpm. Not +12, that was only cleared for takeoff up to 1000 feet or 3 mins).

Of course that's the initial rating - later on the 'Combat' limit was raised to +12. That's exactly what our Australian source noted, despite your pathethic attempt to misconstruct his words:

'This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.'

Of course you were shown that document many times already, and you are already fully aware of this, yet you repeat the same.. for many times now.

BTW, care to comment why all Spitfire manuals produced in the period (summer 1940) are always mentioning two seperate maximum boosts - one when using 87 octane fuel, and one when using 100 octane fuel? If the latter was soooooooooo standard at the time?

Right. Only look at the documents we've seen from the second quarter.

Stock at 31st March 1940 - 220,000 tons
Due in by the end of the year - 383,000 tons

With a Spitfire using at most a quarter of a ton per sortie, and the RAF's peak fighter sortie rate of 5,000 a week, that's a maximum of about 1,250 tons a week, or about 63,000 tons in an entire year. That means stock was enough for over 3 years, and the next 9 months were expected to see another 5+ years supply come in.

Well, at least in your opinion, which is based on an extremely amatourish estimation that takes into account on combat sorties and ignores everything else, including the fuel requirements of the two Blenheim Squdrons using 100 octane fuel, training flights, servicing flights, running in the engine and so on.

Curiously, when the RAF decided to convert the 2nd TAF Spitfires to 150 grade fuel - with about 1000 aircraft (but it appears that it only effected about 500 Spitfires in it, ie. much fighters less than what FC had in 1940 - they estimated the avarage monthly consumption as 20 000 tons. Per month.

Now, you are telling us that some 1000+ fighters could do with 20 000 tons for 3 months in 1940, but oddly enough, in 1945, 500 fighters required the same amount for a single month...?

And we are expected to believe they were worried about lack of supply?

They certainly were, after all, it is well documented. After all, they wanted to convert all operational aircraft in August, and consumption shows nothing of that actually materialized. All the documentations are clearly tie proposed changed in consumption to the expected shipments.

Right, so in May the position is so bad they have to halt the conversion of Fighter Command, and yet at the beginning of August the position is so good they can convert the whole of the RAF?

Apparently. Lets not forget, the Australian source is apparently from the same one as the in the PRO. But I do wonder, why is only tidbits of it are present on Mike's site, hmm?

Is it the same thing than when he waved about a graph showing the performance of the Spit XIV at +25, claiming, as well as you did, that it was in service with that boost?

Years after that, the complete document containing that graph turned up, and its text said they couldn't even finish the trials with the aircraft, because at +25 lbs boost the engine failed almost immidiately, and other papers repeatedly noted bearing troubles at the said boost?

Especially when you see they didn't have to "discover" new supplies, they had them on order.

Certainly. The only trouble was that it was on the far side of the world, and had to be taken in by tankers, under the eyes of U boots and the Luftwaffe's bombers.

And the other reason I don't believe what he posted was a quote of an official document? The language isn't right. There is no way an official report from 1940 has language like "Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis."

Well he never actually stated it was a direct quote, I think it was pretty clear for everyone at the time that he was summerizing the contents of the documents he found.

But, why don't you just go to the National Archieves, dig up AVIA 10/282, take shots of it and post the whole thing in its entirety, if it would prove your point?

Why doesn't Mike or Neil? Because it would say the same as the summary by our Australian source?

Perhaps for the same reason Mike quotes Gavin Bailey's article in tidbits, though, but not the part when Bailey's actually noting that the 100 octane conversion programme effected 16 fighter squadrons only - thats not relevant eh..?

Bailey:

"RAF tests with 100-octane had begun in 1937, but clearance for operational use was withheld as stocks were built up. In March 1939, the Air Ministry decided to introduce 100-octane fuel into use with sixteen fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940, when it was believed that the requirement to complete the war reserve stock would have been met, with the conversion of squadrons beginning at the end of 1939.34

By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.37"

So, sixteen squadrons it is. Wait, that's about 1/4 of Fighter Command, isn't it?

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
with all you pure fantasy, wishful thinking and made up accusations.

Quote: " No, it doesn't list 'operational stations', it mentions 18 operational stations that are proposed to be supplied with 100 octane. Not all. Just 18 (later they appear to have added 2-3 stations to that list though).

Hmmm... weren't the plan was to equip 16+2 Squadrons with 100 octane fuel. Of course it was. Coincidence? No."

As you yourself wrote earlier in message #36" …fighter stations, on which usualy two to four Squadrons were stationed at a time."

So how much is 3 * 18?, It isn't 18. If 18 operational stations had switched to 100 octane and there were only 18 sqns ready to use the 100 oct, what the other two sqns per station did? And how many operational fighter stations Fighter Command had?

Juha

 

[Hop]

Only time for a partial reply at the moment:

No, it doesn't list 'operational stations', it mentions 18 operational stations that are proposed to be supplied with 100 octane. Not all. Just 18 (later they appear to have added 2-3 stations to that list though).

But that IS all of them.

If you read what it says:

The operational stations at which the fuel will be required in the first instance are:

ACKLINGTON
BIGGIN HILL
CATTERICK
DEBDEN
DIGBY
DREM
DUXFORD
HORNCHURCH
LECONFIELD
MANSTON
MARTLESHAM HEATH
NORTHHOLT
NORHT WEALD
TANGMERE
TURNHOUSE
CROYDON
ST. ATHAN
WITTERING

As you note, two days later the following stations are taken from the non operational list and added to the operational list:

CHRUCH FENTON
GRANGEMOUTH
FILTON

If you go to RAF Fighter Command Index they list all the RAF fighter squadrons based in the UK. The Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons in the UK on the 7th December, their bases, and whether those bases are listed to have 100 octane fuel:

Squadron Base 100 Octane
3 Croydon Y
17 Debden Y
32 Biggin Hill Y
41 Catterick Y
43 Acklington Y
46 Digby Y
54 Hornchurch Y
56 Martlesham Heath Y
65 Northolt Y
66 Duxford Y
72 Drem Y
74 Rochford N
111 Drem Y
151 North Weald Y
152 Acklington Y
213 Wittering Y
501 Tangmere Y
504 Debden Y
602 Grangemouth Y
603 Turnhouse Y
605 Tangmere Y
609 Kinloss N
610 Wittering Y
611 Digby Y
616 Leconfield Y

The only two that weren't listed to receive 100 octane were Rochford (74 squadron) and Kinloss (609 squadron). In both cases these squadrons were on short detachments. 74 squadron were flitting back and fore between Rochford and Hornchurch, and had only arrived on the 2nd December (and were back in Hornchurch by the 16th).

609 had been based at Drem until the 5th December, and were back there by 10th Jan.

Both Hornchurch and Drem are on the list to convert to 100 octane.

So yes, every active Spitfire and Hurricane base was listed for 100 octane. That's why after listing operational stations they say:

All non-operational Stations in the Fighter Command will also have to hold certain quantities of this fuel for visiting aircraft.

It would hardly make sense to say SOME operational stations, and ALL non-operational stations, must have 100 octane fuel supplies, would it?

 

[ponsford]

>If you go to RAF Fighter Command Index they list all the RAF fighter squadrons based in the UK. […snip…] So yes, every active Spitfire and Hurricane base was listed for 100 octane.

Nice work Hop, that adds up nicely. I had a hunch that might be the case. Fwiw, just to supplement your listing 74 Squadron was converting to 100 octane in March 1940 and at that time they were bouncing back and forth between Hornchurch and Rochford. Hmm, that could be seen as inspecting and converting one aircraft on March 16. I wouldn't know when the balance of the Squadron's aircraft converted.

 

[Glider]

Very Good information Hop.

 

[Kurfürst]

But that IS all of them.

No, there were dozens of other fighter stations.

Middle Wallop, Warmwell, Exeter, Kirton-in-Lindsey, Coltishall, Wick, Dyce, Montrose, Kenley etc. Should I go on? None of them on that list of proposed 100-octane receiving stations as of December 1939., however.


I actually listed all (not in your sense of 'all' of course, but actually all) fighter squadrons and their stations, which was unfortunately lost in keyboard accident just before, but there were certainly a lot of fighter squadrons at stations that were not even proposed for receiving 100 octane fuel shipments in December 1939.

If you go to RAF Fighter Command Index they list all the RAF fighter squadrons based in the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting, based on a website, that the RAF had only 25 Fighter Squadrons in Britain?

Lets see, thats 4-500 fighters at best, based on establishement (16 or 20). They lost 450 fighters in France alone... which either means that they sent ALL the fighters in France and lost all of them.

Ridiculus, isn't it? But that's what you are suggesting, when you are claiming you are listing all Fighter stations and Squadrons. Based on a website (and one rather hastily put together, if I may add).

The Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons in the UK on the 7th December, their bases, and whether those bases are listed to have 100 octane fuel:

Squadron Base 100 Octane
3 Croydon Y
17 Debden Y
32 Biggin Hill Y
41 Catterick Y

43 Acklington Y
46 Digby Y
54 Hornchurch Y
56 Martlesham Heath Y

65 Northolt Y
66 Duxford Y
72 Drem Y
74 Rochford N

111 Drem Y
151 North Weald Y
152 Acklington Y
213 Wittering Y

501 Tangmere Y
504 Debden Y
602 Grangemouth Y
603 Turnhouse Y

605 Tangmere Y
609 Kinloss N
610 Wittering Y
611 Digby Y

So yes, every active Spitfire and Hurricane base was listed for 100 octane.

No, you have 25 Squadron's station listed. 16+2 of these were eligible for 100 octane fuel.
That's not all of the RAF's fighters, and we don't know how many stations of these actually received 100 octane fuel in the end.

During the Battle of Britain, there were around 60 Squadrons in combat, were there not?

It would hardly make sense to say SOME operational stations, and ALL non-operational stations, must have 100 octane fuel supplies, would it?

Well, it would hardly make sense when wanting to equip 'all' fighter stations - save of course for Middle Wallop, Warmwell, Exeter, Kirton-in-Lindsey, Coltishall, Wick, Dyce, Montrose, Kenley and a couple of dozen others - and then go listing them one by one, would it?

And it of course make sense to have all non-operational stations have a couple of barrels of 100 octane fuel around, if a plane from one of those 16 squadrons that were running on 100 octane fuel happens to miss its way and land there?

Its not particularly healthy for an engine that is set to run at 100 octane to be given 87 octane fuel. It tends to shorten its lifespan to a couple of minutes.

 

[Vincenzo]

RAF fighter stations in BoB
Acklington
Dyce
Turnhouse
Usworth
Wick
Catterick
Drem
Grangemouth
Kirkwall
Sumburgh
Church Fenton
Digby
Duxford
Kirton in Lindsey
Wittering
Coltishall
Leconfield
Tern Hill
Filton
Middle Wallop
Boscombe Down
Colerne
Exeter
Pembrey
Roborough
St. Eval
Warmwell
Biggin Hill
Debden
Hornchurch
Kenley
Northolt
North Weald
Tangmere
Croydon
Detling
Eastchurch
Ford
Gosport
Gravesend
Hawkinge
Hendon
Lee on Solent
Lympne
Manston
Martlesham
Rochford
Stapleford
Thorney Island
Westhampnett
West Malling

 

[Juha]

Kurfürst
I have appr. 10 books on BoB and there were not in 1939-40 dozens fighter stations more than those already mentioned.

Middle Wallop, Warmwell, Exeter were far west and Wick, Dyce, Montrose were far north from the areas where planners in Dec 1939 could think that there might have been contacts with enemy heavy fighters. Kirton-in-Lindsey probably also. Only Coltishall and Kenley were stations that could have been counted as possible front line stations in Dec 39. Of course situations chanced in April and May 40, but those changes were unpredicted by British.

And Hop, Mike and Neil were not only ones claiming that FC had changed to 100 oct before BoB, for ex. Richard Hough's and Denis Richards' The Battle of Britain. The Jubilee History (1990) gives that info on p. 35 and had Appendix XII 100 Octane Fuel on p. 387 which repeat the info with some more background info.

And still like to hear the sources to Your claim that :" So, when say Squadron X reported the use of 100 octane on say 10th August, and then was re-deployed to the North say on 14th of August, the aircraft remained as they were and only the crew travelled North; they were replaced by the crew of say Y Squadron, using the very same planes left behind by X Squadrons, they reported a few day later using 100 octane fuel, too."

because all sqns I'm aware kept their a/c when they moved in or out SE England during the BoB.

Vincenzo
those are airfields where fighter units were stationed during the BoB, not all were FC stations, I'm not even sure that they all had fighter units stationed during the BoB. for ex. Sumburgh was civilian airfield in 1939, I have seen correspondence between its owner and Air Ministry, Kirkwall probably also, otherwise it is difficult to understand why fighters protecting Scapa Flow were based usually at Halton. Boscombe Down was a research center, Roborough was hastly occupied field needed for protection of a naval base, Eastchurch was CC station, Ford, Gosport and Thorney Island were Naval Air Stations IIRC, and probably also Lee on Solent. There might be others that were not FC stations in your list but those came first in my mind, I'm doubtful for ex on Tern Hill.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

source it's raf historical web pages they called it fighter stations
a field can was civilan in 1939 and a fighter station in BoB

 

[Kurfürst]

Vincenzo's list shows about 50 fighter stations - the December 1939 proposal mentions 20 of these (~40%) with the intent to be supplied with 100 octane fuel. I understand however that some of these were wrecked out of service by the Luftwaffe in August.

This seems to be pretty much in line with Gavin Bailey's summary of AVIA 10/282 and our Australians source's summary (of probably the same source) that about 16+2 Squadrons or in other words 1/4 to 1/3 of Fighter Command was using 100 octane fuel during the Battle.

Thanks for taking the trouble for listing these Vincenzo, when I will have bit more time on my hand I will take a look at RAF station maps if we have missed some more.

 

[Juha]

Vincenzo
if you look for ex Thorney Island, it was CC not FAA station, you would see that its occupant, the only one named, is given as 236 Sqn fron July 4th 1940onwards, and in you look 236 Sqn you will see that from 4th July onwards it was part of CC.

Juha

ADDITION
and this is what the cite says on Tern Hill

"Tern Hill was one of the 12 Group airfields used for resting units, and as a training airfield and maintneance depot. It was used as a relief landing ground and as a temporary base for night fighters operating against raids on Liverpool and cities in the north midlands."

I would not call it fighter station as was for ex Duxford, Biggin Hill or Kenley.

 

[Vincenzo]

so there are some wrong on raf pages tell they to correct

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo

Look RAF Eastchurch, the site gives only one sqn using it, 266, and if you look info from 266 Sqn, you see that it was at Eastchurch from 12 Aug to 14 Aug. Maybe Kurfürst would claim that because there was appr 2 days during BoB a fighter sqn stationed that it was a Fighter Station, but it was a Coastal Command Station.

The purpose of the site isn't to list FC stations but name all airfields which had a connection to FC, how weak it might be, during the BoB. It fullfill that purpose but if one wants a list of FC stations in Dec 39, when the fuel decisions were made, one must look somewhere else.

Juha