BOAC Whitley Question

[Ed Russell]

For a short time BOAC used Whitleys as transports. They are usually depicted as having the front and rear turrets faired over. However in Warpaint #21 there is one illustrated with a tail turret.

The caption specifically related to this feature. Surely it would be BOAC's only armed aircraft?

Looking through the BOAC Whitley threads on BM and in a few other places has not found a picture. The artist is the well respected David Howley so it would be surprising if there isn't one.

Most grateful for directions to it and apologies if it's somewhere obvious.

 

[larumivi1951]

Another Profile:

Rudolph

[Seahawk]

I would have thought that retaining an armed gun turret on a civil aircraft was a violation of international law, but I know which illustrator I place greater confidence in.

[brewerjerry]

Hi

    Perhaps the turret was there, but the guns were removed ? 

     cheers

        jerry

[Vingtor]

None of the photos of BOAC Whitleys that I have have seen, show the turret installed. I did a bit of research on these aircraft for my book The Stockholm Run.

 

Nils

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

I would have thought that retaining an armed gun turret on a civil aircraft was a violation of international law, but I know which illustrator I place greater confidence in.

However.... the only photo of a civil Whitley in Air Britain's Whitley File is (p.66) a rear three-quarter view of G-AGCF: no tail turret, fairing instead.  The Caruana profile doesn't quite capture the lower edge: a sharper break from the vertical to the underside. 

[Dave Fleming]

AGCF was the first Whitley conversion, so it could be an interim state.

 

 

[Magpie22]

They were used on Gibralter - Malta supply flights, so a rear turret may have been of some use.

[Graham Boak]

Still an illegal combination.   There is an interesting thread on Flypast on Liberators at Prestwick, with the most recent postings about changing from civil to military markings almost from flight to flight. There is rather more to taking a turret on and off, but the implication is that the civil registration would have been removed, or at least distempered over.

[sloegin57]

21 minutes ago, Magpie22 said:

They were used on Gibralter - Malta supply flights, so a rear turret may have been of some use.

Exactly what I was thinking Magpie22.  As I understand it they were converted to carry urgent supplies on to the Island during the siege and it is possible, though I cannot prove it, that "Higher Authority" considered it prudent for them to be armed and given a bit of an edge.  I doubt very much if the late David Howley would have drawn it as such without photographic evidence from either his files or the late Dick Wards.  

 

As Graham says, still illegal, but bearing in mind what else went on during that conflict, a very minor and, under the circumstances, a highly necessary infringement. 

 

Dennis

Edited December 16, 2018 by sloegin57

[Graham Boak]

He may have relied upon a written statement such as "CF was fitted with a turret" which may simply be identifying the aircraft rather than the markings applied at the same time.  Given that trouble was taken to change the identity of the Liberators each time, and the amount of time required to fit a turret, a coat of distemper could readily have been applied for any such flights.  After all, unarmed Lodestars and even a Commando were regularly flown into Malta.  I don't recall any mention of trouble from Axis night fighters.

 

I think that we need that photo for confirmation.

[Seahawk]

Air Britain's Whitley File says a shuttle service between Gibraltar and Malta using 7 BOAC Whitleys began on 1 July 1942 after test flights by G-AGCI and G-AGEA on 28 June and G-AGEA again on the 29th.  However only 9 flights were made, with one aborted owing to engine trouble, before the idea was reconsidered.  The Whitleys were back at Whitchurch by 15 July.  They were replaced by Hudsons from Gibraltar and Lodestars from Egypt.  There is no individual mention of G-AGCF anywhere in the civil Whitley section.

 

So it was a short-lived enterprise.  Which isn't to say the decision wasn't made at the outset to retain tail turrets for these aircraft.  Howley does highlight the retention of the turret: it certainly wasn't an oversight on his part.

[sloegin57]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I think that we need that photo for confirmation.

Don't we just !!

 

DR

[tonyot]

Good question Ed,..... as we all know, it wasn`t exactly `legal' but knowing David, he wouldn`t have putthe turret on without some info, especially after mentioning it!

 

Now this is a photo that I bought for inclusion in my book about Malta (No Place For Beginners) and arghh,..... guess what cannot be seen due to the fin!!!

 

 

It would be great to find out more about this! My research concluded that the very slow speed of the Whitley meant that they would struggle to complete the flight to Malta from Gibraltar within the hours of darkness and it was a return flight within the hours of darkness which was actually needed, hence the adoption of the Hudson/Lodestar/Liberator.

Cheers

          Tony

 

PS- Whitley`s were also detached to Malta to drop the paratroopers involved in the first ever operation by British Airborne Forces which was to blow up the Tragino Aqueduct in Italy. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by tonyot

[Graham Boak]

I think you are treating all too lightly the likelihood of approval for operating armed aircraft in civil registrations.  It was considered a complete no-no to operate unarmed Liberators on military missions on civil markings, how much more significant would an armed one be?   Once discovered, it would be a propaganda coup for the enemy and a threat to all future British civil air operations into neutral airports.  I can see the possible desirability of a turret on Whitleys carrying out hazardous operation - but not whilst still carrying a civil registration.  The game isn't worth the candle - not for the cost of a pot of distemper.

[Dave Fleming]

I stick to my original thought this was based on a photo of an interim partially converted airframe.

 

 Interesting the nose shape on Tony’s pic is different from the Airfix kit, which is more like the pre-war fairing (Before turrets)

Edited December 18, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[Work In Progress]

Graham makes a good point about the unlikeliness of a civilian BOAC crew, or the organisation itself, being prepared to operate an armed aircraft on commercial flights. Not only would it be a war crime under international conventiopns, but also a domestic crime in the law of England and Wales under the 1937 Firearms Act, which explicitly banned civilian possession of all fully-automatic weapons. I am willing to entertain the concept of the aeroplane being operated by BOAC with a turret fitted, but not for that turret to be fitted with guns unless some solid photographic or documentary evidence comes to light. This would ideally include some mention of how BOAC was exempted from the 1937 Act. 

 

For context it is evident that aircraft manufacturers have always had exemptions to permit the manufacture, flight test, production test and delivery of firearm-equipped aircraft intended for military service, and that ATA pilots flew deliveries of aircraft fitted with guns (though not loaded with ammunition) within the UK.

 

So some exemptions to the Act were evidently in place, but limited to UK flights, and to situations where the actual purpose of the flight necessitated it.

 

There's absolutely no percentage in flying cargo and/or passenger flight to Malta in a Whitley with guns but no ammo. The presumption must be that if official policy considered the operating environment to require an armed aircraft. then policy would also have assigned the aircraft and the mission to an appropriately trained RAF unit rather than to BOAC.

 

Another point is that air gunnery, especially from turrets where you don;t have the advantage of aiming the whole aeroplane, is genuinely difficult. Not the sort of skill you just pick up, and the armament would be worse than useless in untrained hands.  So either the RAF would have had to provide qualified gunners, or BOAC would have had to find some people and train them. If something so out of the ordinary had happened it's likely we'd have heard about it from witnesses, either the gunners or whose who trained them.

[Procopius]

14 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

 Not only would it be a war crime under international conventions

Which conventions? War crime is a very specific word. It wasn't a war crime to place DEMS gunners or guns on merchantmen, why was it a war crime to arm a civillian aircraft?

[Seahawk]

13 hours ago, tonyot said:

Now this is a photo that I bought for inclusion in my book about Malta (No Place For Beginners) and arghh,..... guess what cannot be seen due to the fin!!!

 

 

It's not 100% clear but I'm happy that this aircraft does NOT have a tail turret.  The very clear photo of G-AGCF in the A-B profile shows a vertical line just in front of the tail fairing, rather like a weld seam on an AFV but more pronounced: it may even be the fairing overlapping the fuselage proper.  I can see that line on the photo and what there is visible behind it looks solid rather than the glazing of a turret.  Again , not clear enough to be conclusive but I know where I'd  place my bet (and I am not known for hazarding my money).

 

No mention of G-AGDY in the A-B write-up other than that it was converted from BD386.

[Graham Boak]

46 minutes ago, Procopius said:

Which conventions? War crime is a very specific word. It wasn't a war crime to place DEMS gunners or guns on merchantmen, why was it a war crime to arm a civillian aircraft?

An interesting point.  However civilian shipping have a long-standing tradition of carrying armament for defense against pirates, so precedent having been set, different rules will apply.

 

The ruling is consistent with war on land, where armed civilians not in uniform lack the rights of belligerents and can be shot out of hand if found.  Something the BOAC crews might well have pondered.  There is also the status of civilian aircraft in neutral airspace or at neutral airfields.  A military aircraft would be interned with its crew.

 

These rules were maintained because they were mutually beneficial, and covered larger concerns than supplying one island under seige.  For example the roles of Lisbon and Stockholm.

[Procopius]

2 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

An interesting point.  However civilian shipping have a long-standing tradition of carrying armament for defense against pirates, so precedent having been set, different rules will apply.

 

The ruling is consistent with war on land, where armed civilians not in uniform lack the rights of belligerents and can be shot out of hand if found.  Something the BOAC crews might well have pondered.  There is also the status of civilian aircraft in neutral airspace or at neutral airfields.  A military aircraft would be interned with its crew.

 

These rules were maintained because they were mutually beneficial, and covered larger concerns than supplying one island under seige.  For example the roles of Lisbon and Stockholm.

I'm asking for a source, really. I agree that by common consent civilian transport aircraft generally if not always went unarmed. But where in the Hague Conventions or the first through third Geneva Conventions is arming a civilian aircraft prohibited? If someone's going to contend something is a war crime, as has been suggested above, they ought to be able to furnish the law of war that's being broken. 

 

The closest I can find, after much digging, is in the 1919 Paris Convention on International Navigation:

 

Article 26.
The carriage by aircraft of explosives and of arms and munitions of war is forbidden in
international navigation. No foreign aircraft shall be permitted to carry such articles between any
two points in the same contracting State.

 

But this is followed by:

 

Article 38.
In case of war, the provisions of the present Convention shall not affect the freedom of
action of the contracting States either as belligerents or as neutrals.

[Dave Fleming]

A slight side issue - references I have quote that  the 14 surviving Whitleys were returned to the RAF after use by BOAC (Including G-AGDY/BD386). I wonder if any flew in RAF markings

[Work In Progress]

1 hour ago, Procopius said:

 where in the Hague Conventions or the first through third Geneva Conventions is arming a civilian aircraft prohibited?

 

I am happy to concede that you might have a point there in terms of the treaties in force at the time: I shall have to go back into it and look further when I am free to do so. I was making assertions based on my memories of the rules on legal combatant and non-combatant status, but upon reflection I learned all that under the '49 Convention which of course post-dates the second global unpleasantness. However, its illegalty in English law during WW2 is clear, as provided by the '37 Act, unless some specific exemption can be demonstrated.

[sloegin57]

3 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

However, its illegalty in English law during WW2 is clear, as provided by the '37 Act, unless some specific exemption can be demonstrated.

"Crown Immunity" ?

 

DR

[Procopius]

12 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

 

I am happy to concede that you might have a point there in terms of the treaties in force at the time: I shall have to go back into it and look further when I am free to do so. I was making assertions based on my memories of the rules on legal combatant and non-combatant status, but upon reflection I learned all that under the '49 Convention which of course post-dates the second global unpleasantness. However, its illegalty in English law during WW2 is clear, as provided by the '37 Act, unless some specific exemption can be demonstrated.

I'm not so sure about that; I looked in the 1937 Firearms Act:

 

Exemptions from holding a certificate
(1)The following provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in section one of this Act.

...
(6)Any person may, without holding a certificate,
(a)have in his possession a firearm or ammunition on board a ship, or a signalling apparatus or ammunition therefor on board an aircraft or at an aerodrome, as part of the equipment of the ship, aircraft or aerodrome; and...

 

 

Additionally, 

 

5 Application of foregoing provisions to Crown servants
Notwithstanding any rule of law whereunder the provisions of this Act do not bind the Crown, so much of the foregoing provisions of this Act as relates to the purchase and acquisition, but not so much thereof as relates to the possession, of firearms and ammunition to which this Part of this Act applies shall apply to persons in the service of His Majesty in their capacity as such, subject however to the following modifications :—
(a)a person in the service of His Majesty duly authorised in writing in that behalf may purchase or acquire such firearms and ammunition for the public service without holding a firearm certificate