[edNorth]

Adriano
W.Nr. 088 0340: Definitions (subject to Historical correctness, but reality often has twists but these do not affect definations!) Built as original Ju 88 A-1 (later) as shown on the web-site skins (short-Wingspan) - in version transit period July 1940 - when transition from A-1 (later) to A-5 was happening - then defies as A-5 (without cameras) or A-5 F (with cameras) with longer wings (right on or after delivery) but was not Ju 88 D-2 as stated. The A-1 F and A-5 F had their RB mapping cameras inside the rear bomb-bay, but D-2 had the cameras aft of the rear-bay Spant 15 (Bulkhead frame 15). JFM has no records of this modifications (as a program) as it was routene upgrade by August to end of 1940 and involved longer wings (with wing heating channels in leading edge/whole wing). Later internal Kuto was also added and A-6 / A-8 versions were dropped.

Ju 88 A-5 Fs (Recce-Bombers) are often mis-stated D-2s but the original D-2s were only after W.Nr. 088 0772 (not after 0765 as Medcalf states). The D-1 was similar to D-2 except the engines/props. In fact prototype for D-1 was ex-D-2 0778 DE+DZ as by then was finally available the Jumo 211 F/J engines and VS 11 props with auto-proppeller controls (but these were in short supply thrughout summer 1941 and up to 60 Ju 88 D-1 standing at given one time at Bernburg with these lacking.)
But many of the (298) A-1/5 F “Fernerkúnder” already delivered to the Luftwaffe were "re-designated D-2" (or just called that after repairs or overhauls, and “A-5 F” most often vanishes from records).
But some sources state that the Ju 88 D-2 start at W.Nr. 0765 but this author has found no proof of that statement, but one of the earliest likely was the W.Nr. 0772 (and followed by 65 mounted in-between them remaining A-5 or C-2/4 Zerstörers, up to WNr. 088 0890). Of these 888 were accepted by the Luftwaffe but two were rejected. (“JFM FSD-Nachbau, Fertigung und Ausbringung" 31.07.40) but D-2s were made in February and March 1941, or parralell to first A-4s, D-1s come later.

For everybodys information, despite my quietness here on responding to specific losses request infos, I am (past winter) working on the more deeper Ju 88 issues & inccuracies that are still repeated by past and modern authors, notably Welsh and German - details specificly researched for my book of course - and explain/proofing "with no compromizes".

There is still regularily published wrongs "William Green style" on Ju 88´s many versions, notably the Ju 88 B V and A-6U (sic) and Mistels (as late 2017). There is one that dances the thin line of the good and the really horrible and yet not admitting. (Note: This is totally beside the correct writing defination style of the RLM designations and the official RLM order for these, seen and read in NARA RG.242 T177, R321 or NASM ADRC T2 rolls, but I have read, but lost where I read that (May or October 2017). Re-finding has failed, sooooo, a hint to the Doc Roll Nr./Frame be greatly appriciated. I bet some nerd here knows ... ) -Ed.