Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Hi All,

Can anyone identify this Ju 88 which came down in Scotland. I think I have seen another view of this crash and believe it could be a recon machine? Any further details would be appreciated.

Melvin

www.aircrewremembrancesociety.co.uk

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Melvin, I believe this is:

25/12/40
Ju88A-5 (D-2? Has long wings)
Crash landed in a field near Flotterson, South of Loch Skail, Sandwick, Orkney.
3.(F)/22
WNr.0535
4N+AL
Shot down by a Grumman Martlet of 804 Squadron of the Fleet Air Arm, based at RNAS Skeabrae.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

It is this loss

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

This was Ju 88 A-5 F (Fernerkunder)
W.Nr. 0880535 4N+AL

later taken elsewhere
www.flickr.com/photos/20087013@N02/8268862204/in/photostream
www.flickr.com/photos/20087013@N02/8267792991/in/photostream/

*There is good online references on how German RLM Aircraft Designations were written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLM_air...gnation_system

**Long wing did not indentifiy if Ju 88 D-2 or not.
The new Ju 88 D-2 designation was suggested by JFM Dessau and approved by the RLM on 15.03.1941 (In effect no D-2 exist before that time!) Usually (three) Rb 30/50 mapping cameras in rear bomb bay in A-5 F version were relocated to aft of Frame 15 - in both Ju 88 D-2 and Ju 88 D-1, thus one more internal Fuel tank could be carried, but numbers of Rb 30/50 mapping cameras (usually) reduced to two.

Regards
Ed

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

What are you referring to Ed with the link to how German RLM Aircraft Designations 'were' written?

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

For your info only.

Regards
Ed

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

How petty, childish, and sad of you to continually snipe about how the designations of Luftwaffe aircraft are supposed to be written (in printed format!!). Surely you have better things to do with your life than think up ways to slip in these snide comments whenever someone even remotely connected to LEMB posts on here. Get a life Ed.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Is there any explanation, why Focke-Wulf was always written "FW" in GQM loss reports?

Also, in the same reports sub-version numbers are always written together with version letter, i.e. FW 190 A8 and not Fw 190 A-8. Is there any official document covering correct writing of RLM type designations in the Luftwaffe?

Matti

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

He's pathetic Matti. Does it really matter how a designation is written on a public forum? We all know what it refers to no matter what way it's written. Troll springs to mind. The whole purpose of no gaps is so the forum search functions can work effectively.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

I don't care how a designation is written on this forum and as long as the numbers and letters are in correct order I will understand, what we are talking about.

I want to know, how the things were inside Luftwaffe 70 years ago and why there seems to be inconsistencies. We all know, how exact, meticulous and bureaucratic the Germans were in paperwork and therefore it seems strange, that writing a type designation, which should be self-evident, is so difficult. Or should we believe, that inside Luftwaffe different players used different style?

Matti

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Heres a slightly different view of this aircraft. Source Google search for Ju88A-5 some time ago.

Colin

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Hi Ed

I always read your posts with great interests. Keep postings

Greetings from Norwegen
Knut

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Clint if you are referring to Ed North, be careful. He is a highly respected poster regarding Ju-88 matters, Your language characterizing him as you do is not acceptable on this forum. Keep to the facts. Not personal labels.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

But it's alright for him to continually snipe. I'm not interested how respected he might be, it doesn't give him the right to snipe at me. If you don't like the language used I suggest you read up on what it means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

It's a classic term for people like Ed North.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

I am sorry but I must agree with John. In all my dealings with Ed, I have found him more than helpful & the opposite to what has been stated

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Chris, with all due respect you do not know the full story.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Interesting, Ed. But with what I have been involved with for over 30 years, and what I have found, it doesn't seem to be quite so rigid as Wikipedia states.

For example, if you've got the Petrick/Mankau book, take a look at page 162. Therein is a copy of an official document with the heading 'Me 110 Modell'. Yep, that's right, notwithstanding the 'Bf' designation to the 110, the company on this document call it the Me 110.

Now we know the 210 should be the Me 210, because of the change regarding the company name, etc.. Right? All down the line (that's not a cue for a blues song - read on!) to unit level? Wrong. Karl-Fritz Schröder, at various times with Erpr. Gr. 210, SKG 210, ZG 1 & KG 40, spent time with the Erprobungsstaffel 210 with his normal pilot Wolf Meyer-Erlach between December 1941 and March 1942. Flight testing the Messerschmitt 210. But all his Flugbuch entries show the designation 'Bf 210'! (Page 155 of my 'Sting of the Luftwaffe').

70-odd years later we are wringing our hands over such things, when in reality, at the time, they didn't give a toss...

One thing I've learned over that long period of time I mentioned earlier is: expect the unexpected. And don't get too upset or excited if things pop out at you from 'left field' (as I understand the Americans say).

Hope this helps.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Its' getting a little ugly here. Seen it on other forums, hope it doesn't continue here. Now back to Luftwaffe history (hopefully?).

Chuck

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Ok. Thanks all. I did not expect this outburst and have no intent of comment further. I have ever so often given small info or corrected small things here, I can not see the intentional "snide" or Trolling in my postings. Maybe my English is no good after all.

John Vasco: Yes, there are these interesting exceptions that seem kill all established theories, but most often these are errors - printed company documents or not - perhaps that employee that wrote it up knew no better - was he perhaps fired for doing so? - often some clerk or employee changes things for secifiic purpose - purpose we do not know about - i.e. that may not be obvious to the newcomer or those that can not distingush between what is supposably correct or not correct.

I said "good" reference but not extremely good, notably correct or such. Maybe there is better referance out there. And lets not forget: Wikipedia has authors (althou it often appears authorless), just as we all are (or think we are) but then experts step in and correct (werever we like it or not) but then we probably do not know either, if there is still more experts out there ...

As this is my 1000th "post" (answer) one might throw in a jucy one.
One author was once given a list of German aircraft codes where the maker of that list had reversed the last two letters of the unit code so his computer could sort them correct (in alphabetical order). Needless to say they were copied just like that into that given-to-authors manuscript and printed that way.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Ed,
They are more than 'interesting exceptions', and not necessarily errors. Whereas nowadays we seek to be hard and fast about things, that was not the case at all at the time.

I have always used 'Bf' when referring to the 109 or 110, but I would not go so far as to insist that that was how official records of the time referenced them.

It's all interesting stuff in the field of research...

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Clint, I know exactly what the term means and it is unacceptable to be applied to a respected member of this board. I suggest that you refrain from such characterizations in the future. If you do not there will be consequences.

Please stick to facts and reasonable postulations.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

That ghastly excuse for a human being gets no respect from me, so with all due respect to you John you can do what you want with your forum and it's consequences because I really couldn't give a shit. ;)

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Will this kind of talk be allowed to continue on this forum? I certainly hope not but it appears that it will.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

Hi Guys,

Please can we get back to my simple thread, I only asked for the loss details and it seems it has started a full scale war. I know Clint as he has helped me with a local request in the past, in fact went out of his way to make some photos for me, so please guys lets not pick on Clint just because of this, he is a very useful and helpful forum member. Sadly I do not know Ed so I cannot make any comment, except can we get back to the thread please.

Regards to all,

Melvin

www.aircrewremembrancesociety.co.uk

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

I hope we cam but you don't make comments like that. I'm sorry.

Re: Ju 88 Force landed in Scotland
 

I am locking this thread for the moment as it has become a personal vendetta. This sort of behavior and commentary cannot be allowed.

I may reopen it later.