The context I am complaining about is that this paper was produced after a meeting in March 1939 well before war broke out.
My first two postings give a timeline and all of those statements are supported by original documentation. They show how the situation developed
14th September 1939 a paper commenting on the tests,
Interesting but it does not give any answer as to the number of Squadrons operationally employing the fuel, which is the question here.
7th December 1939a paper going into the nuts and bolts of the admin needed for a change in fuel and listing 21 stations (incl 3 added later). Interesting that you still believe that the no of squadrons is less than 21.
... and this paper being an
enquiry from a mid-ranking RAF officer, clearly in no position to decide the matter which Sqns/Stations are being supplied or not.
12 December 1939 a paper confirming that 100 Octane fuel is to be used on Spitfire, Defiant and Hurricane aircraft dependant on the fuel being issued. Note that this is clearly a change from the March 1939.
A change - in what way? I would like to see that paper.
The March 1939 paper says that it will be used in 16 fighter (ie. Spit/Hurri/Def) and two bomber (ie. Blenheim) Squadrons.
In any case you seem to be forgetful of the May 1940 paper that says that 'Squadrons concerned' were supplied with the fuel, clearly indicating that 100 octane fuel was issued to selected units, but not all.
Take note that on 18 May 1940 the Oil Committee 'made clear its position to Fighter Command' and that 'the Units concerned' has been supplied with 100 octane fuek.
Compare with the "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War" from the AWM, found much earlier, but are in good agreement:
"By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time. Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply)"
My position is that given the several papers pointing out the contrary - the Spitfire II notes,
Disproven
Disproven, no, dismissed by you - maybe.
But is your dismissal of every evidence produced against you relevant?
I think not.
Which no one can find even the archives themselves. All we are asking you to do, is supply a copy.
Well, if you would kindly tell me how am I supposed to supply a copy of a document on the far side of the globe, I would be happy to.
The paper is valid for March 1939, what I object to is you posting it as if it was a WW2 paper without the other papers describing how the change developed.
Problem is, you supplied nothing that would have shown that there was a change in the policy. You simply assume that there *must have been* a change, and the evidence is... out there... somewhere... and you certainly can't support it.
Interesting statement. All my statements are supported by original documents and yours by nothing, not a thing.
You can repeat this silliness as many times as you want, I don't bloody care, but you see it would a lot more constructive if you would actually post something that would actually prove your position.
You have never seen a copy of the Australian paper and everything you say depends on it. Yet you have never tried to find it or even get a copy. It isn't the Australian who is making these claims on this site, its you.
Frankly, you can be very odd sometimes.
Lets just get one fact straight.
You believe that all Fighter Command Stations and Squadrons were supplied with 100 octane fuel.
You can't say when this happened, how this happened, but you are absolutely certain that it happened. A matter of blind faith, isn't it?
You certainly said so earlier. Then what are your arguements about now, I wonder...