According to an article in “Scale Models,” about 40 years ago, in a talk with a 617 Squadron pilot, the Tallboy carriers were supposed to act as protection(!!) for the Grand Slam aircraft, which were painted in different colours, and had yellow codes outlined in red, instead of the usual other-way-round. Maybe the different codes were another recognition aid?

Short-nosed Blenheim nightfighter.
Edgar

Not the first time StH has got things wrong (319 was for ailerons,) and Spitfire mods had a different series of numbers from Seafires. Seafire 697 was “To introduce a slotted type cap for oil filter door.”
Edgar

According to the ORB, in Kew, it was Sergeant Robertson; gives his service no. as 413490, but that’s close enough for government work.
Edgar

If I might be permitted to clear up one problem, no Mk.IX Spitfire was ever fitted with a wing carrying “B” armament. When the IX first appeared, it became the norm to refer to them as IXa, or IXb, but this was completely unofficial, and referred to the engine rating, i.e high or low level, and had nothing to do with the armament.
Also, at some stage, it was intended that there would only be “C” armament, and, because the outer compartment was used for the pipes carrying heat to the outer Brownings, a modification was put into practice, to cut off the outer stub fairing, leaving just a singleton for the 20mm. This has led to a lot of erroneous “recognition” of “B” wings.
When moves started, to bring the “E” armament into service, the mod was swiftly cancelled, and the second stub reappeared, albeit blanked off.
Edgar

It’s a little difficult to “Forget the damned dog,” when you consider that, as a tribute, Gibson used his name to signal that the first dam had been breached. In all of this rhetoric, about “PC,” etc., perhaps we should aim it at those (in many countries) who’ve taken a perfectly innocent word, and turned it into a symbol of hate and violence. A friend, who polishes furniture, for a living, could, in the 1950s, ask for a “Nigger Brown” dye, but he can’t any more.
However much the rewriters of history (so sensitive on my behalf) twist and turn, and tell us how to behave, the fact remains that anyone, now and in 100 years time, who goes to the National Archives, will find the full history of the raid, including the signals sent, which is as it should be.
Edgar

Firsrtly the storty of the deacon, if true, which I doubt.

Interesting that you, who was not there, can call one of my friends (who, at the time, worked for the church, was an eye witness to the event, and is a lifelong committed Christian) a liar.

The marriage certificate is simply a piece of paper, to keep bureaucrats happy (and in a job.) Many years ago, a young firebrand deacon caused the local blue-rinse brigade to almost have apoplexy, leaving them gaping like fish out of water, when, during a “It’s not a proper marriage, unless it’s in church” debate, he said, “Ladies, the ceremony is meaningless; it’s the bunk-up, in the bed afterwards, which makes it official.” You have sex, you’re married, it’s as simple as that (at least it used to be) in the eyes of the church.
Edgar