Short Stirling & RAF Bomber Command Forum

Once there [in the UK] we had a series of about one months courses. The actual flying was teriffic.
The last one [course] I did was at Fiskerton - Airfield Control tower instruction. While there I was approached by a Wing Commander who told me they were recruiting 12 pilots to help pioneer this so called secret weapon Village Inn. We were supposed to be a bit brighter than the average A.G. (I doubt it!).
The 12 of us gathered at Fiskerton for training which was, in light of events, bloody inadequate.
[...]
The VI wasn't a great success. It was often u/s and hard to interpret otherwise. I think only six of us got through our tours.

14. The identification problem was tackled promptly, but no form of positive identification was found. The alternative, negative identification, where the friendly must prove himself friend, increases the necessity for greater efficiency and for some extremely simple and efficient means of identification. The B.D.U. working in conjunction with the R.A.E. and the A.R.L. devised the present Type 'Z' equipment. Briefly, these equipments require the whole bomber force to be fitted with I.R. transmitters and for all A.G.L.(T) aircraft to have an I.R. telescope aligned with the sight. Identification was then assured by coded transmission which the gunner in the A.G.L.(T) aircraft was able to read.

[...]

17. The equipment was first used operationally by 460 Squadron on the 20th/21st July, 1944. Whilst the equipment worked well generally, it was obvious from the first that negative identification required great care and restraint by gunners. To make matters worse, trouble was experienced with I.R. filters fitted to the transmitting lamps, and I therefore decided to operate A.G.L.(T) aircraft only under certain conditions and when other aircraft were not likely to be encountered. In the meantime, aircraft had been arriving at 49 Squadron and gunners had been trained in the equipment. This Squadron first operated A.G.L.(T) on the night 11th/12th September. Both the squadrons experienced a considerable amount of unserviceability with A.G.L.(T) and test gear was therefore fitted so that the gunner could try out the equipment during flight. When the equipment was working well, numerous contacts, chiefly friendly, were made. It was apparent, however, that gunners mistrusted the Type 'Z' identification and were loath to fire blind at what they thought might be friendly aircraft. As a tail warning device, the equipment was exceptionally good, giving both correct line and range of approaching aircraft.

[...]

20. To sum up, A.G.L.(T) gave promise of becoming one of the greatest assets to the defence of heavy bombers at night, but unfortunately, no completely successful identification system was found and there was no practical scheme for one by the end of the war. Moreover, it has been found that the present Mark of A.G.L.(T) is most difficult to keep in a serviceable condition, and when unserviceable puts a gunner at a distinct disadvantage owing to restrictions in view which the extra equipment imposes. A.G.L.(T) Mark III, or, as it is likely to be, Mark IV, should offer very distinct advantages over Mark I as the necessity for continuous search with Mark I is most tiring to the air gunner.