I've seen reference in a couple of books to a Gotha, returning from a raid on London, being shot down by a Handley Page Bomber converted into a gunship, with five Lewis guns. Apparently quite a few of them were used in this way, and undertook patrols in the Dunkirk area. Does anyone have any more information on them, aside from what i've just mentioned?

Thanks, Rob

There was only one, a O/100 from RNAS Couderque (Dunkirk) which may not have been converted in anyway*, that flew a patrol off the Belgian coast to intercept returning Gothas on Sept 29/30 1917 - it would appear that they probably got two. ( Three Gothas were intercepted and engaged and German losses include two crashing before reaching their aerodrome) Not having to carry a bomb load both the front and rear gun positions were manned (normally only the rear was manned the navigator doubling up as a front gunner if necessary. The Admiralty appears to have considered this was not what HP O/100s were supposed to do and ordered that no more sorties of this type be flown.

*Some accounts do say 5 guns and four gunners but it is difficult to see where the extra gunners could have been placed

Thanks Centurion, much appreciated

Here's a file at Kew that might help:
AIR 1/89/15/9/218 Handley Page aircraft- records of flights and servicing. 1917-1918

Does that cover RNAS HPs?

I've not seen it, worth a look. How many HPs were in RFC service in 1917?

Here's others:
AIR 1/475/15/312/192 Handley Page aircraft: flying return and number of raids carried out 1917
AIR 1/1091/204/5/1758 Reports and tests: Handley Page aeroplanes. 1917 Sept. - Dec.

Six - O/400 'prototypes' modified from O/100s formerly with the RNAS

Not many then.

Which is why I wondered if the document covered RNAS aircraft.

Not to do with the HP Gunship but thought it worth asking - about half the photos of HP O/100's and O/400's i've seen, the front gunner position seems larger than on others, such as this one



Compared to a smaller nosed one



Anyone know the reason for the difference? Ie different batch, later production etc

The bottom illustration is originally from an Italian series of aviation books that contained many errors so I wouldn't trust it as a yardstick. AFAIK the main item of variation between the HP/400s was the engines fitted. I believe that one may have been experimentally fitted with a COW gun but I've seen no photo to confirm this.

Here's a better photo showing the different sized noses - there's definitely a difference that i've noticed in the few books i've got which mentions them, but none mentions the difference or any reasons for it

It looks like as thought the coaming around the gun position is raised slightly, rather than the actual nose enlarged - probably a minor mod to make things slightly more comfortable for the occupant.

Interesting colour scheme on the M1C

I'd suggest that the different noses are variations on the design by different contractors. C3498 was built by the Royal Aircraft Factory, and J2243 was constructed by the Birmingham Carriage Company.

Gareth

At the expense of the pilots forward view when landing and taking off! Not a good idea in a night bomber. The Bristol Monoplane is plainly an instructor's aircraft. Possibly the HP is at a training establishment and used to train air gunners?

What is your reference for this, please and do you have the serial number of the aircraft?

According to Sturtivant, and Page various HP O/100s were fitted with the Davis 6pounder gun.

King, in "Armament of British Aircraft 1909 - 1939" states "Production aircraft (late 1916) had a Scarff ring-mounting in the nose. and in some instances at least this was of the "disappearing-quadrant" type, apparently known as No.3." He goes on to say that the nose position sometimes had twin Lewis guns and that the Bomb Sight, High Altitude, Mark IA was mounted on the nose cockpit rim.

He also says that trial installations of both the 6 Pdr. and 2 Pdr, Davis guns were made.

Regards
TonyE

Adrian

There's a photo of the same aeroplane in the 1960s Profile booklet on the Bristol Scout. It's C5014, but there's no mention of the unit that operated it. My guess is one of the Schools of Aerial Fighting.

Gareth

Four O/100s were fitted with the Davis gun (see the British Bomber since 1914- Mason) for anti submarine work. There is a photo of one such HP fitted with the Davis in 'Handley Page Bombers of the First World War' (Boyer) - the raised coaming on the gunners cockpit appears to be exactly as in the photo under discussion. The gun itself was mounted in a frame ahead of the nose. These aircraft flew on anti sub patrols for some months but without success and the Davis guns were then removed and the aircraft used as conventional bombers until the Armistice. Looking through various publications covering the HP O/100 and O/400 series almost all aircraft photographed have the conventional coaming with eight exceptions. One is an HP captured by the Germans (this is captioned as an O/400 but since only the fuselage is shown and this has been stripped of all fabric and equipment it could be an O/100), Two and Three are American built HP O/400s and Boyer makes a special note of the raised coaming as different from standard HP O/400s. There is an O/100 at Mudros with a raised coaming and another one used as an engine test bed (in these cases the coaming is similar to the Davis gun carriers). There is one O/400 at Stonehenge (but this is problematic as the coaming is partly obscured) and two in France (and Boyer makes special mention of the raised coaming). These last three coamings do not look as raised as the O/100 ones or the one in the initial clear photo in this thread. Its possible that the various O/100s are in fact the Davis gun versions with the gun removed. All in all the raised coaming does not appear to have been very widespread and all might have been produced for some special purpose.

BTW the designed (and sometimes fitted) armament of the O/400 was five Lewis (2 in each of the front and rear cockpits plus what was referred to as the anal gun) with a crew of five ( front gunner, pilot, navigator, rear gunner, mechanic/anal gunner) but as German night fighters proved to be less of a problem than anticipated and there was a need to carry more fuel and/or bombs the aircraft were often flown with a crew of three (pilot navigator/front gunner, rear gunner) So the 'gunship' would merely have been carrying a normal complement of guns.

And I thought he was the "anal gunner" because he kept his quarters so neat and tidy!

Fitzee

I can confirm that this deals with the RNAS HPs.

In post #2 you described the gunship as an O/100 now its become an O/400. Do you have any references for the gunship and her identification number?

Slip of the digit plus absent mindedness - aircraft had to be an O/100 given the date of Sept 1917 - belonged to RNAS 7/7A but no number. The event appears in a number of places but the best seems to be that in The Air Defence of Great Britain page 338