Ju 88 A variants
 

I doubt much that the so-called A-6/U, A-9, A-10 and A-11 variants of the Ju 88 A ever existed.
None of these designations appear in the Bewegungsmeldungen of the units that could have used them (KG 26, 76 and LG 1 for instance). I don't have the relevant LW losses lists and cannot confirm.
Can someone help me?

Thanks in advance.

Chris

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Yes ....
i found just one reference for Ju 88A-6/U
wk 4198
loss 1-2-44 Italy Mittelmeer
9. LG 1 February 1944.
PN+MT scribble camo

(Bof = need to verify)

one photo from 4198 see page 90 in Japan book :
"famous aircraft of the world FAOW n°7" (by PM)
other pic perhaps in Model Art #356 p134

Bsrg, Dan

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

CJE / Dan,

I refer recent to discussion on LEMB on PN+MT. I belive this was Ju 88 A-4 (Jumo 211 J) W.Nr. 550498 and any reference to this as A-6/U is (I belive) simply an old error. Besides the A-6 was version of A-5, an older version. I belive the others, A-9 to A-11 have no doubt regarding existance as sources have numerous references and many do explain exactly how these came about.

Best regards
ed

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

A-1 Bomber
A-3 Schulflugzeug
A-4 Bomber
A-5 Bomber
A-6 Bomber with Ballongabweiser
A-7 Schulflugzeug
A-9 was another name for A-1 Trop
A-10 was another name for A-5 Trop
A-11 was another name for A-4 Trop
A-12 Schulflugzeug


Best
Olve

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Ed,

As the discussion regarding PN+MT started on LEMB, I have just posted my reply there.

Chris

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

In die ju 88 from Nowarra, we have many pics
page 122 A-6U (no skz)
page123 A-6U (no skz)
page 124 A-6U ( FU 200) taken by allied in farnbourought 1946 and one A-10 from LG1
Page 125 one A-10 (given from LG 1) L1+LW, one A-11 L1+NH (given from LG 1),one A-11 L1+KK (given from LG 1),one A-11 L1+KK
Bsrg, Dan

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Dan,

This is false saying an A-6/U at Farnborough! The Mistel one was A-4. Those books you refer to are full of ´errors´, yet many qoute these as facts. The concept of saying its A-6/U just because it had FuG 200 radar is simply not correct. The D-1 also had radar.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Yes certainly, often authors repeat the same errors, more and more, sometimes we can searching about with the mark, SKZ and found allieds rapports about theses aircrafts , so is not easy, for moment i can't found one A-6/U in the CEAR ....
(i missed time for search in Bama HQ loss)
Bsrg, dan

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

I know what I am saying. Why are you so shure it existed?

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Hi Ed ,you certainly right, i'm absolutly not sure it exist, for moment we can found any trace in Lw officials datas .
Best Regards, Dan

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

I don't recall ever seeing the Ju 88A-10 thru 12 referenced as a loss, nor the Ju 88A-6/U. The A-10 was supposedly the tropical version of the A-5 - but in losses a Ju 88A-5/trop is a Ju 88A-5/trop.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Yes, and from June 1943 on, there are only A-4s and A-5s and no more "Trop".
A-12 was a training version, by the way.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Jim,

Yes, partly true, it is hard to find some variants thrugh losses alone, as some were only a few conversions each but there are examples:

A-10 5287 in LWFLS (Luftwaffe Schulen) losses 11v23.06.41

Others are found via misc doc´s, Lieferplans (e.g. A-8´s that were planned by a certain factory), or ecceptance totals. I have numerous refs to A-12´s and other designations not yet mentioned in popular books.

Best regards
ed

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

I misspoke - I should have said A-9 through A-11. I do have a bunch of A-12s in my database - most, if not all, with training units, along with a boatload of A-7s. And proving once again that one should look before they leap - I have 4 A-10s, including the one Ed mentions. But given what the variant was supposed to represent, that is minimal compared to the A-5/trops.
Ju 88A-10, 0611, n.n., , II., St.G. 2, , , , , 08-Apr-41, Notlandung., , X.Fl.Korp/Mittelmeer, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #3)-Vol.4, , Bengasi-Mechili, 30%, F, ,
Ju 88A-10, 2285, ./., , 9., LG 1, , , , , 23-Apr-41, Bombenwurf., , X.Fl.Korp/Mittelmeer, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #3)-Vol.4; Taghon, LG 1, I, p.454, , Fl.Pl. Derna, b, F, ,
Ju 88A-10, 2209, Pfeil, Uffz. Gerhart, , 8., LG 1, , , KK+BL, , 22-Apr-41, MIA with crew due to Luftkampf with enemy fighters during recon sortie., Built Arado Flzg.Werke Brandenburg in Sep-40., X.Fl.Korp/Mittelmeer, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #3)-Vol.4; Taghon, LG 1, I, p.454, Medcalf, Tobruk, 100%, F, B Uffz. Willi Wanner, Bf Uffz. Willi Reinhold & Bs Uffz. Karl Franz,
Ju 88A-10, 5287, Schiffers, Fw. Eduard, , , Gr.Kampffl.Sch. 4, , , , , 21-Jun-41, Crew killed in crash due to striking the ground., Usually reported as an A-5/trop!!, Lw.Bfh.Mitte/Deutschland, BA-MA Signatur RL 2 III/779, Flzg.-Unfälle bei Schulen usw., p.335, 350, , bei Mühlberg, 100%, H, B Flg.Ing. Gerhard Terlecki, Bm Gefr. Karl Mungel & Bf Gefr. Herbert Morzink,

And is it just my connection? Or is this board just really slow for the last day or so?

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Attached an extract from BA/MA Freiburg RM 7/2378:
Zusammenstellung der in der Luftwaffe eingeführten Flugzeugmuster mit Erklärendem Text ihrer Baureihenbezeichnung Stand 01. April 1941.

Junker

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Hello!

From the document ju88dk posted (Thank You, Junker!):

"Ju 88 A-12 Schulmaschine mit verbreitertem Rumpf ..."
Widened fuselage! I guess widened at the cockpit area, where, how much and why? Can this be seen in photos?



Cheers,
Kari

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Thank you, very interesting.
A-9, A-1/Trop...? Wasn't the A-1 phased out when the LW began its operations over the Med?

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Kari, Wider dual-control cockpit are known from photos, several pics have been sold via eBay and some can possibly be found by google search. Jim, No problem, finger troble happens all the time. Ju55dk lists variants but does not reveal all.

Design/building history was much more complicated than just Ju 88 A, B, C, etc. Many features simply became standard as time went by and upgrades were performed and an issue almost never mentioned: Countless rebuild of major components and exchange of old wings between aircraft. I will now leave this discussion.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Hi

Does anyone know what Armament (Bewaffnung) A and Armament B meant for the Ju 88 of LG1 in October 1941?

Many thanks in advance.

All the best

Andreas

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

To me, what this shows is that when the matter of tropicalised variants first arose, Junkers/RLM simply looked at the major sub-variants in service (or planned) and allocated new numbers to each. The A-1 was in service therefore gained a new tropicalised variant. It may well be that no A-1s were ever tropicalised, so this sub-variant "did not exist" in terms of real airframes to this standard.

It seems that in practice, these new numbers were generally ignored and the "/trop" suffix applied. So the question "did such exist" has two answers: yes, in the master list of possible variants; no, in that aircraft were not so referred to in practice. Except, it seems, that some were.

Could it be that the terms were used interchangeably (Hypothesis A)? Or were the new designations only applied to new-build airframes , whereas most were modified from existing airframes and thus gained the "/trop" suffix (Hypothesis B)? Is it possible to test these rival ideas from the known Werkenummern or StammKennZeichen?

The posting above suggests that examples of A-10s came from a wide spread of WN. This does not look to me like a specific production run, so favours hypothesis B.
Do we have adjacent (or close) WN with different designations? If we find an A-10 listed in the middle of a run of A-5/trops, this would suggest a casual approach to the use of such designations, again favouring B.
Sadly, it is easy to conceive of the A-5 production line, with some randomly-dispersed aircraft receiving tropicalisation on the line and rolling out as A-10s, whereas others being converted later as A-5/trops, with a resulting smorgasbord of numbers and variants!

Do we know if any tropicalisation was applied on the production line rather than at post-production centres? Or was there a mix here, too?

Moving on to Ed's comments on rebuilds/hybrids. I'd argue that the designations only matter in so far as they provide a short-hand term for useful information. These normally only matter in two areas: the combat capabilities and the spares requirements. For obvious reasons, the direction is almost always forwards: earlier types are modified to later standards. Put later wingtips and later engines into an A-1 and it becomes an A-4, to all practical purposes; it can operate alongside A-4s, can use A-4 manuals and be supported by A-4 spares. Similar problems arise along the length of the A-4 run: there will have been many modifications introduced over the years, and a late A-4 will have differed in many small ways from an earlier example. The Luftwaffe, like all air forces, had a bureaucratic tail that kept track of such matters. Each aircraft will have been monitored and cared for as appropriate to its build standard and fit. Hybrids are just examples with a slightly more complex history.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Graham. I know this maybe is not mine to answer, but since I am mixed in anyway.

I know you are maybe a Rocket expert (hypothesis A), or not (hypothesis B). But I have read your comment abowe with open mind. This what follows might sound silly but here goes.

One Apple (Ju 88 A-1, C-1, A-2, C-2, D-2, A-3, C-4, A-5, A-6) + one Orange (Ju 88 A-4, D-1, C-6) + one Banana (Ju 188, 388) = Fruits (Luftwaffe, Ju 88 series program). All can be grown in Tropics but also in Arctic areas, given enough heat and light.

Conclusion: I eat all.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

?

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Graham,

Question mark then probably means you do not understand what I am getting at. Thats quite normal. Not understanding or knowing the Ju 88 ´production history´ can lead to many mis-conclutions and many statements (you make are in your post) - to my best here-to-research - do not seem true at all. Maybe its my fault too of not having finished research. But mixing the /trop issue into the discussion on A-1, A-5, A-4 really is mind boggling.

Ok. Here goes. To put later Jumo 211 J engines (as used on A-4 later) on A-1 or A-5 early airframe, you need changing wings but also the fuselage. But then the W.Nr. also changes, because the W.Nr. follows this. I have no confirmation of A-1 rebuilt as A-4. Its as simple as that.

Basic production versions were the A-1, A-5 and A-4 (all others just matter of engines, equipment and subsequent production standards). All other designations were conversions, but yet some versions came direct from assembly line (like D-1 and C-6). All /trops were conversions at first but at certain point (but long after A-4 entered production) then on ALL were /trop. Even the D-1, C-6 and G series. There were three basic wings. Three basic fuselages. Three basic tails. etc. F.e. one could not use E wings on A-4 series.

Do not let multiple of different W.Nr´s fool you. Really understanding these however it brings us to the point that there were no hybrids, just conversions, rebuilds and experimental aircraft.

The point with Apples and Oranges. This is like some politicians very much like doing (to confuse the public I guess): Comparing things that are not comparable and drawing conclusions to their own liking.

No offence meant.

Best regards
ed