Whitley: Crew disposition

[PAXboy]

I should like to learn a little about the duties and positions of the crew of this machine. As to specifc Mark - the early years of the war 39/40, rather than any later Marks. That said, I don't think the crewing changed.

All I can find is: Crew of 5: 1 pilot, 1 navigator/bombardier, 1 radio operator, and 2 gunners.

Some places refer to the Ventral turret and give it's armament as two m/g guns. Was this manned by the Radio Operator during bombing/attack? It is the R/Op that is of interest. Many sites on line make no reference to the Ventral and only give fore/aft turrets and their equipment.

Many thanks.

[J.Don.]

Whitley Crew

I am certain at the 1939- 1940 stage Bomber Command flew on operations with two pilots Excepting the Hampden of course which only had room for one. I think the RAF went too a one pilot crew in 1941,probably because of pilot shortages.

[MReyn24050]

Originally Posted by PAXboy

I should like to learn a little about the duties and positions of the crew of this machine. All I can find is: Crew of 5: 1 pilot, 1 navigator/bombardier, 1 radio operator, and 2 gunners.
Some places refer to the Ventral turret and give it's armament as two m/g guns. Was this manned by the Radio Operator during bombing/attack? It is the R/Op that is of interest. Many sites on line make no reference to the Ventral and only give fore/aft turrets and their equipment.
Many thanks.

Francis K Mason in his book The British Bomber since 1914 (Putnam) states that the Whitley had a five man crew comprising of pilot, navigator, nose gunner/bomb aimer, observer/wireless operator and rear gunner.
The original order for Whitleys was signed in 1935 and had been for 160 aircraft. The Whitley entered service on March 9th 1937, when the second production Whitley Mk.1 K7184, was delivered to 10 Sqn at Dishforth. The next production aircraft were delivered to 10 Sqn . The second Sqn to be re-equipped with Whitleys was 78 Sqn, also based at Dishforth. No 58 Sqn operating from Linton-on-Ouse was equipped with 8 Whitley Mk. I and 4 Mk. IIs. After 51 and 7 Sqn had been equipped with Whitley Mk. IIs, 58 Sqn exchanged its original Whitley Mk. I.s for Mk. II. Whitley Mk. IIIs were delivered to 102,77 and 51 Sqns with 51 Sqn’s now redundant Whitley Mk. II being transferred to 97 Sqn. Merlin powered Whitleys entered service in May 1939 when 10 Sqn received delivery of their first Whitley Mk. IV. Nos 51 and 78 Sqns also operated Whitley Mk. IVs.
Deliveries of the first Whitley Mk. V had started in August 1939, shortly before the outbreak of WWII, and during the early months of the war 77,102,58,51 and 10 Sqns had been fully equipped with the Mk. Vs.Ultimately Mk. Vs were to be operated by 15 squadrons.
The Whitley Mk.III was the only Mk. of Whitley to be fitted with the ventral turret. On the Mk III the Armstrong Whitworth nose turret was replaced by a power-operated Nash and Thompson type and the tail turret was supplemented by a retractable midships ventral ”dustbin” mounting of a pair of Browning machine guns.


I have no confirmation which member of the crew operated this gun but I should imagine it was as you say the wireless operator.

[PAXboy]

MReyn24050 Thank you VERY much, yes that seems to line up with the report of a (now deceased) radio op. He was in from the start, having signed up in 1937/8.

If the first deployments of this machine were to Yorkshire (Dishforth), were most of them there? He reported two occasions of having to ditch when returning on one. One such occasion was in Herne Bay and the second also on that North Kent coast, looking as if they got back due East and put down as soon as they could. The man spoke of the Whitley in the most unfavourable of terms, I am told!! Some sites state that the machine was robustly built, this man said that they were built of cardboard! Of course, perception of the occupants may well vary from fact!

[MReyn24050]

The following is an extract from the RAF History of Bomber Command:-
"No. 4 (Bomber) Group was formed on 1st April 1937, with headquarters at Mildenhall, Suffolk, and its first AOC was Air Commodore (as he then was) AT Harris, who was later to become AOC No. 5 Group and then, from 1942 to 1945, AOCinC Bomber Command. On 29th June 1937, headquarters were re-located at Linton-on-Ouse, Yorkshire, and on the same date the Group took over the following stations and squadrons from No. 3 (Bomber) Group: Leconfield, Nos. 97 and 166 Squadrons; Driffield, Nos. 75 and 215 Squadrons; Dishforth, Nos. 10 and 78 Squadrons; Finningley, Nos. 7 and 76 Squadrons; and Linton-on-Ouse, Nos. 51 and 58 Squadrons. Actually the last two squadrons were then located at Boscombe Down.
At the outbreak of war the Group had eight squadrons and its first operation was on the night of 3rd/4th September (the first night of the war) when ten Whitley IIIs of Nos. 51 and 58 Squadrons took off to drop leaflets in the Ruhr and over Hamburg and Bremen. From this small beginning sprang the vast and varied activity of the next five years. The Group not only struck many devastating blows against both Germany and Italy, but also trained many of the best crews in Bomber Command. In addition, it helped to create two other Bomber Groups."
On June 11 1940, the day after Italy entered the war, 36 Whitleys from 10, 51,58,77 and 102 Squadrons set off to bomb Turin and Genoa ,stagging through Jersey. Due to bad weather and engine failures due to icing only 13 aircraft reached their targets. I could find no evidence regarding what happened to those that did not make it.
Although the Whitley cannot be claimed to have been a success it was a great step forward from the aircraft it replaced i.e. HP Heyfords and laid the foundations for the RAF's night-bombing strategy and tactics.
I would Not say the aircraft was “built of cardboard”. It was the first aircraft with a stressed-skin to go into service with the RAF. See attached drawing showing it’s monocoque contruction.

Leonard Cheshire who, as a Flight Lieutenant on 102 Sqn and pilot of Whitley P5005 during a raid on Cologne in November 1940 received a direct hit from flak which ignited a flare and severely damaged the monocoque of the rear fuselage. Nevertheless, he continued to bomb the target before bringing the crippled aircraft home, for which he was awarded the DSO.

[PAXboy]

Thank You MReyn24050 and other contributors, much useful information for me to pass on to the family with helpful links and illustrations.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

"All I can find is: Crew of 5: 1 pilot, 1 navigator/bombardier, 1 radio operator, and 2 gunners"

Just a minor point; but in the Real Air Force, we always had Bomb Aimers. There was never enough room to carry artillery corporals around.

[jabberwok]

There was never enough room to carry artillery corporals around.

I guess it should have been Wireless Operator as well then. Some trained as gunners too and bore the coveted WOpAG title. Not sure of the offical capitalisation.

[teeteringhead]

Some Whitley trivia.
The Whitley is commemorated in an RAF squadron badge. The badge of No 78 Sqn, which is still active (currently helicopters in the Falklands) comprises a tiger with two tails. At the time the badge was approved, the Sqn were flying Whitleys ..... with twin tails and Tiger engines!

[Philthy]

Semi-monocoque wouldn't you say, Mel?

[MReyn24050]

Originally Posted by Philthy

Semi-monocoque wouldn't you say, Mel?

Looking at the drawing I would agree, as it seems to conform to the following description of a semi-monocoque design:-
A semi-monocoque design overcomes the strength-to-weight problem of monocoque construction. In addition to having formers, frame assemblies, and bulkheads, the semi-monocoque construction has the skin reinforced by longitudinal members.
As against the true monocoque construction which uses formers, frame assemblies, and bulkheads to give shape to the fuselage. With the skin carrying the primary stresses. Since no bracing members are present, the skin must be strong enough to keep the fuselage rigid. The biggest problem in monocoque construction is maintaining enough strength while keeping the weight within limits.
However, Oliver Tapper in his book "Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913" states in his description of the Whitley "The biggest departure from the normal Armstrong Whitworth practice was in the fuselage, which was of light-alloy monocoque construction". Also Francis K Mason in "The British Bomber" also describes the aircraft as having of a monocoque fuselage. Yet when Mason describes the A.W.29 he does refer to this aircraft having a semi-monocoque rear fuselage.
Mel

[JDK]

Monocoque? It's a question of precision. Most descriptions of 'monocoque construction' are more precisely and accurately semi-monocoques, unless you are referring to an eggshell. Like using 'propeller' rather than the more accurate 'airscrew', or 'organic' in terms of vegetables, common usage has overtaken accuracy.

It's not hard to find even good technical writing of the 20s and 30s (IIRC) which used monocoque when they meant semi-.