[ouidjat]

Originally Posted by edNorth

Hi Franck

Originally Posted by edNorth

Please do not call this "Ju 188 E-2", as in service it was the AAB-1 ( but based on Ju 188 E-1 / F-1 version, BMW 801 engines, and thus in all probability were just Ju 188 E-1´s despite used by the Aeronavale). They were configured for FX 1400 and HS 293 bombs/missles by the French.

Clarifying: the Ju 188 E-2 was planned as Torp (Torpedo Bomber) version, but I have not seen any (photo) proof the French Ju 188 E´s were configured to carry torpedoes (like the Ju 188 A-3 with Torp equipment). My french is poor but I can not find any evidence in the book you quote from. Possibly there exists a document somewhere in old Frence files, but these are not indentified by their W.Nr´s, so one does not know for shure.

BTW, I also see the info comes from Pierre Dumollard "Junkers 88 et 188 Francais", Page 168 (right?), but it does say I agree with him on "E-2" version (which I think is error). This book has more errors, the photo text on top of page 18 says "Un Ju 88 abandonné par ..." actually shows a Heinkel He 177 "Greif" wreck. It is such mistakes that make one wonder, is the research behind such as exact.

- (the other) ed

Hello Ed (2nd )

- Ju 88 were AAB.1 not Ju 188. (See same book P.24)
As for Ju 188, I cannot say if they received any SNCASE production code/name. (I expected AAB.2 if ever)

- E-2 or E-1?
Why not? In all book they are just described as Ju 188 except in the last table where they are called Ju 188 E-2.
I wonder why in all book the author take care of calling the first machines as Ju 88, then when produced/rebuilt by SNCASE, as AAB and or AAB.1 (P.24), and nothing else than Ju 188 for the Ju 188s.
So, I think there was no AAB for those machines. It's possible, I don't know.
More, considering the way they got them, rebuild them from spare parts, I think it's difficult to call them Ju 188 E-1 or E-2, so far.

- He 177: You're right.
Just because of that error can we consider it’s enough to throw this book in the bin? If so we can do it for all past and present publications, can’t we?
By the contrary, I think there is more than enough sources provided in this work, quoted help too, and it seems to me quite well documented and acceptable.

- Last, I didn’t talk about torpedoes, just FX1400 (Photos P.71 and P.73) and Hs 293 (P.76); French Navy didn’t consider them as Torpedoes but as “Flying guided missiles”.

Last, since I only have this book, I cannot say more (Though I remember “Le Fanatique de l’ Aviation” did publish an article about those machines.)

So, Dear Ed, thanks anyway for your comments and help about this. I just did put few available details concerning that eBay picture.

I think, however, that you’re right some details deserved to be clear up.

Regards, Franck.