Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

Re-addition of old claim about 100 octane fuel use

Minorhistorian has again added his old claim about 100 octane fuel being issued to all RAF Fighter squadrons. I.e. However, this was based on an assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel. On the outbreak of war this problem disappeared; production of the new fuel in the US, and in other parts of the world, increased more quickly than expected with the adoption of new refining techniques. As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940. The reference given is ' Payton-Smith 1971, pp. 259-260.' This seems to be questionable in light that none of the major works, ie. Spitfire : The History by Shacklady make such a claim. Minorhistorian has been repeatedly pressing such a claim for a long time and it contradicts contents of primary sources on the issue, as he is well aware. Can a direct quote be provided for 'As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940.'? Kurfürst (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the recent edit says: However, this was based on an assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel. - arguing against the conclusions drawn by Morgan and Shacklady (ie. 16 fighter Squadrons were scheduled for conversion by September 1940). Does 'Payton-Smith 1971' argues against the conclusion of by Morgan and Shacklady, or directly state that 'the meeting was held on 16 March 1939 to consider the question of when the 100 octane fuel should be introduced to general use for all RAF aircraft, and what squadrons, number and type, were to be supplied. The decision taken was initial delivery to 16 fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940.' was based on an erroneus assumption? Or this part of the addition is a comment/assumption by yourself? Kurfürst (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oil by Payton-Smith is a properly researched, scholarly book, in the Official History of the Second World War series, and focuses directly on the supply of oil and oil products, and the policy and administration of oil supplies to Britain before and during World War 2 (all 520 pages); Morgan and Shacklady is a properly researched and scholarly history focused on the Spitfire and one which touches incidentally on the fuel supply situation. Which would be more useful when it comes to researching aviation fuel supplies to Britain during the war? Note the date of the meeting quoted by Morgan and Shacklady - 16 March 1939? Basing an entire claim about the fuel supply situation in 1940 on a pre-war report, written 16 months before the Battle of Britain started is an interesting way of presenting history. Kurfurst's other claim that Payton-Smith's properly researched and scholarly book is a "questionable" source is his usual way of saying that he doesn't like what the source says, because it contradicts his passionatly held belief that the RAF was supplying only a quarter of its units with 100 octane fuel. I know which source is worth believing. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply asked for a direct cite for these sentences. Why cannot you provide instead of this lenghty essay on which sources should be relied upon and which shouldn't? We both know that you have been pressing this claim for a long time, initially without any source for it, and then interpreting some sources very optimistically. I think its understandable why I am asking some cites from this book. And you cannot provide, which would be the simplest thing to close this question. As we both agree, both Payton/Smith and Morgan/Shacklady are, as you say, properly researched and scholarly history works. It seems there is a conflict between the two, though I have hunch that the conflict may also involves your interpretation of Payton/Smith. This needs to be clarified first, and if there's disagreement between respectable sources, it needs to be worked out first.

Moreover that part of the article is starting to get some undue weight, so its probably time to trim it down a bit. Kurfürst (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On page 56 of Oil Payton-Smith notes

By 1939...The prospects of securing sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel in addition to the 87- octane petrol required for non-operational flying looked doubtful...(he goes on to state on page 57) It was true that by 1939 it seemed increasingly unlikely that American supplies would be withheld. But to have accepted anything less than absolute certainty, to have depended on the goodwill of foreign suppliers to meet the essential needs of the Royal Air Force, would have been a radical break with traditions that had governed British oil policy since long before the First World War.

Thus we have a published source which states that 87 octane fuel was used for non-operational flying as I stated in a previous discussion; this explains why Spitfire pilot's manuals (for example) still include 87 octane fuel as well as 100. It is also clear that British planning in 1939 was based on the possibility of the US withholding supplies of 100 octane fuel, although that was becoming increasingly unlikely. He later confirms that there were no problems with the supply of 100 octane fuel in 1940, because of American imports and new methods of refining (pp. 259-260).

It will be recalled that, before the war, the British government had made strenuous efforts to ensure that there would be enough (100-octane spirit) to meet Royal Air Force requirements by 1941..But after the outbreak of war the problem had fallen out of sight. The pre-war activity had been based on the assumption that United States supplies would be denied to Britain in time of war. In the event, as was shown, they remained available. At the same time production both in the United States and in other parts of the world developed more quickly than expected with the aid of a new and simpler process...Thus, although 100-octane spirit came into general use in early 1940 there was no anxiety in these early months of the war about the prospects of supply.

Interestingly Kurfurst has mentioned knowing a journal article "The Narrow Margain of Criticality" written by Gavin Bailey on 100 octane fuel (KF-"for those not familiar with Bailey's work, Bailey questions the importance of American import, and also questions the tactical importance generally attributed to 100 octane fuel"). If Kurfurst is so familiar with this article Kurfurst would also know that Bailey uses Payton-Smith's book as one of his main references. In fact Bailey quotes directly from Payton-Smith p. 57 as the concluding paragraph of the article. Of course even knowing this, as he must do if he is so familiar with the article, Kurfurst still quibbles about using Payton-Smith as a source, preferring instead Morgan and Shacklady because this supports his own blinkered viewpoint. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make three points at this position, as some factual corrections are evidently required. I am Gavin Bailey, the author of the EHR article in question; I did post as 'gavinb' in the on-line forum mentioned. However, in contrast with certain claims made above, my work does not challenge the fact that 100-octane fuel was in widespread operational use by the RAF in 1940 - in fact, it cites several original sources from contemporary Air Ministry records which disprove the canard that it was not (although this is incidental to the objectives of the piece). I have to confess to being greatly amused by the allegation that I have impersonated myself in order to contradict myself in a public forum. I would be particularly interested to see the IP logging evidence that indicates I posted to the forum in question from 'Pennsylvania' as claimed, when in fact I posted from the Open University, Milton Keynes, England. If anybody wishes to challenge my work or add to the actual historical knowledge on this subject, I suggest they take the time to research, defend and publish their views in a reputable academic journal in order to avoid falling prey to the distortions of anonymous cranks on the internet.80.1.161.209 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, to avoid mistakes (or in this case, wild supposition as to the veracity of the editor?!), consider posting under a userid. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC).

I can confirm that I contacted Gavin via the email address given here. It is disgusting that Kurfurst has attempted to use Gavin's name in a callow attempt to discredit information posted in this article. Personally I am furious because it is this type of behaviour that undermines Wikipedia as a whole. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Gavin Bailey's work, "The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain", originally published online on April 15, 2008, does not seem to support Minorhistorian's version of 100 octane fuel use. To directly quote this work:

Significantly, at the same time as the British were preparing to take these preliminary steps required to utilise 100-octane fuel, a committee was formed consisting of representatives from the leading oil companies, Imperial Chemical Industries and Air Ministry officers. Chaired by Sir Harold Hartley, the chairman of the Fuel Research Board, the objective of the committee was to recommend measures to ensure that adequate supplies of 100-octane fuel could be supplied in wartime. The immediate impetus behind this development was the possibility that the main existing source of supply"”hydrogenation plants run by Standard Oil and Shell within the United States"”might become inaccessible owing to the embargo requirements of the US Neutrality Acts on the outbreak of war. A further consideration was the fact that 100-octane supplies were purchased in dollars in the case of Shell and Standard Oil production in the United States and in Dutch guilders for Shell production from Curacao in the Netherlands West Indies and later on from the Netherlands East Indies. This presented a potential problem for British balance of payments and foreign currency exchange which was only resolved in the short- and medium-term future by the adoption of supply under the terms of lend–lease in 1941.

The Hartley Committee eventually determined in December 1938 that three new hydrogenation plants should be funded partially at government expense in Trinidad and in Britain to expand British-controlled annual 100-octane fuel production capacity to 720,000 tons above the level already in prospect from existing supplies. At this point Shell and ICI had co-operated to build the first hydrogenation plant in Britain at Billingham on Teeside and further plants were being planned at Stanlow in Cheshire by Shell and Heysham and Thornton in Lancashire by the Air Ministry. In January 1939, when the Hartley Committee report was adopted by the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Treasury was able to cancel one of the planned plants in Trinidad on the grounds of cost, in return for an expansion of the authorised war reserve from 410,000 tons to 800,000 tons, 700,000 tons of which were to consist of 100-octane. This represented an entire years worth of estimated consumption on the basis of the major expansion and production schemes then in force and required an enormous investment in building the required protected underground storage infrastructure.

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 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.

'fighter stations selected for the changeover'. This does not sounds like that each fighter station was supplied, rather, a number was selected for this changeover. Kurfürst (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And Gavin goes on to say 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.

...much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel. Which actually means that good forward planning enabled Fighter Command stations to be stocked with sufficient supplies of 100 octane fuel. It would seem Kurfurst continues to misquote Gavin, after Gavin has already had to defend himself against certain allegations made by KF. Shameless...'nuff said. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To forestall any future attempts by Kurfurst to misquote and otherwise abuse Bailey's findings:

Beyond this question of operational analysis lies the issue of strategic supply linked to nationality. The historical reality of the sources of origin for the 100-octane fuel used during the Battle indicates that worldwide sources of production were involved in supplying the RAF.

While oil companies in the United States were important sources of supply, they represented a minority of the supplies actually accumulated by 1940. The initial development of 100-octane fuel can accurately be described as an American achievement, yet by 1940 the responsibility for RAF use of the fuel can only credibly be placed on the pre-war planners in the Air Ministry and Committee of Imperial Defence who ensured that sufficient supplies were stockpiled and sufficient alternative sources of production established so that if American supply was withheld for political reasons the wartime use of the fuel on an enormous scale could still be permitted.

The concept of the narrow margin between victory and defeat involved in much of the historiography of the Battle of Britain increases the significance attached to the individual factors which contributed to the historical outcome. The selection, identification and quantification of these contributing factors must nonetheless be historically supportable. Attempts by later aviation historians to ‘ rediscover ’ the importance of the fuel, and identify it as a specifically American measure in isolation, seem to run the risk of being a retrospective attempt to insert and overstate the impact of an identifiably American national contribution to the Battle of Britain at a time which predates the fuller Anglo-American co-operation which developed subsequently. The history of the Hartley Committee and the supply and storage of 100-octane fuel for the RAF between 1937 and 1940 indicate that British strategic planning did not depend upon on this co-operation in the pre-war period, and planning continued to ensure the existence of sufficient viable alternative sources of supply during the Battle of Britain.

Perhaps the final word on this aspect of the issue of 100-octane fuel supply and the return of the issue to the correct historical context of British supply policy can be taken from the British Official history. The conclusions of that work seem too often to be ignored by the historiography of the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain: 45

"It was true that by 1939 it seemed increasingly unlikely that the American supplies would be withheld. But to have accepted anything less than absolute certainty, to have depended on the goodwill of foreign suppliers to meet the essential needs of the Royal Air Force, would have been a radical break with traditions that had governed British oil policy since long before the First World War."

University of Dundee GAVIN BAILEY 45 Payton-Smith, Oil , 57.

These are Gavin Bailey's concluding comments and they say something very different to Kurfurst's interpretation of this 18 page report. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst, this seems to be the third occasion when you have attempted to use my work to support a conclusion on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain which I have explicitly rejected. You have been asked, repeatedly, to desist. You cannot claim to be unaware of my views on the matter, having been confronted by them on a previous occasion when I challenged you on the misuse of my work on the forums of www.ww2aircraft.net.

Note my comments there on 31 January 2009.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305.html

...nothing in my work either can or should be used by people attempting to argue that 100-octane fuel was not in widespread use in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. That position is contradicted by a mass of original evidence cited in my work (and elsewhere). The next time anyody attempts to produce carefully-selected references from my work to contradict the historical use of 100-octane fuel by the RAF in the Battle of Britain, please refer them back to my original article which if nothing else should provide them with sufficient primary source evidence to disabuse them of that notion.

I also refer you to my post of 7 February 2009, which concludes;

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-during-bob-16305-4.html

My thesis, if this requires further clarification after my original posting on this forum, is that 100-octane fuel was supplied from a diversity of sources within and outside the US (in contrast to the received wisdom), but also was in widespread use during the Battle of Britain, as a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence demonstrates (in conformity with the received wisdom). Yes, you have quoted one decision mentioned in my article about the planned use of 100-octane fuel in selected squadrons in 1939. However you then ignore the text and references which then indicate that this decision was overtaken by others. Highlighting that first decision without exploring the subsequent changes to it is either mistaken or dishonest. If you cite my work again, I would ask you to make it clear that I have explictly and publically disagreed with your revisionist appreciaton of the use of 100-octane in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.

Your apparent need to misrepresent and distort the works of others discredits your thesis out of hand. Your apparent willingness to repeat this misrepresentation and distortion after being challenged by the author of that work themselves does you even less credit.

Gavin Bailey 80.1.167.215 (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

British specification for 100 octane fuel was known as "BAM 100" (British Air Ministry 100 octane) in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.22 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

German bombers limping back to base with 200 hits

I`ve just about had it with this. An article entitled "The Fighter In WWII" in the RAF yearbook 1978 (p61) states :
The fitting of armour and self sealing tanks to German aircraft raised a difficult problem for the RAF Fighter Command, which witnessed cases, during the Battle Of Britain, of German bombers limping home with more than 200 hits by 0.303 inch rounds.

If a quote form the RAF itself is not considered reputable enough for certain Wikipedia editors I think one of two things should happen :

1 - The relevant editors should desist.
or
2 - 99% of Wikipedia should be deleted.

If the added text is not considered grammatical then improve it, but do not delete a quote from the RAF, it`s just a joke.

--JustinSmith (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Which aircraft and when? What proportion returned with 200+ hits? Where did the information originate? The problem is that the source is anecdotal and doesn't provide specifics which can be traced and verified. The existing wording of the article makes sufficient reference to the problem of bringing down armoured Luftwaffe aircraft. Let us try and find a better reference which gives more statistical information and clearly states its sources. This sort of reference might be usable if we were looking at the fate of a single aircraft but this article, which covers an entire campaign and thousands of aircraft, is better off as is.Damwiki1 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the information is worthless, if so why do the RAF consider it to be worth putting in their Yearbook ? As far as I`m concerned if it`s good enough for the RAF it`s good enough for me, and Wikipedia come to that. The info puts into numbers a fact that those who have an interest in the subject (of the inadequacies of the .303 machine gun as a fighter armament) know to be true.
As an aside, do the RAF still do Yearbooks ?--JustinSmith (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What I'm stating is that we have no way to verify the veracity of the statement in the yearbook. Writers in various Service publications do not have some special insight or access to information and the statements therein have to be judged according to their references. OTOH, there have been well researched articles and books written on this subject, whose sources are stated and we should use these in preference to anecdotal sources.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Another factor, which I should have mentioned sooner, is that the Luftwaffe aircraft(s) that returned with this number of hits, may have been written off and considered a combat loss.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The definition of anecdotal is "based on personal accounts rather facts or research". This is an article in the RAF yearbook, the question should be is that a reliable source, to which there are two answers. If the RAF Yearbook is not a reliable source we`re in big trouble, I exaggerate for the sake of humour, but only a little. Students of the BofB know that the .303 was too small a calibre even for 1940, the figures quoted in the Yearbook are merely confirming that.
If an aircraft makes it back to, or landing at a friendly airfield, it was never considered to be shot down as far as I`m aware. And in any case, we cannot know how man aircraft were written off as you suggest. What we do know is the crew would generally have been returned to fight another day.--JustinSmith (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There are dozens of military journals, annuals, websites etc, and they are not infallible sources of information. Their accuracy can only be assessed by the sources they reference, just like any other source. The RAF might, indeed, not have awarded a kill for a bomber with 200 hits they mananged to limp back to the nearest base, but that doesn't mean that the Luftwaffe didn't promptly consign it to the scrap heap, whilst simultaneously sending some of the crew to hospital and the rest to the morgue. There are sources, such as Mason, Francis K., Battle Over Britain: A History of the German Air Assaults on Great Britain, 1917–18 and July–December 1940, and the Development of Air Defences Between the World Wars and Korda, Michael. With Wings Like Eagles: The Untold Story of the Battle of Britain, that essentially discuss the fate of even individual aircraft. I just haven't had the time to run up the library to get copies, but these are the kinds of sources that we need.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)