Quote:
Originally Posted by INM@RLM
It would also be fair to point out that the photo on p.13 captioned as showing the "forward-firing Waffenwanne" (bath) fitted to the underside of the Ju 88 C-5 actually depicts the REARWARD-firing Waffentropfen fairing (teardrop - this term is noted in Griehl: Star p.87) fitted to the C-5 and subsequently the C-7s. (This installation was noted in the Baureihenübersicht section for the C-7 as "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17".)
|
I took another look at this curiosity and realized I should have written this section more tightly, since this rearward-firing installation was in fact only fitted to the C-7 (although the Bordwanne was removed from both the C-5 and the C-7).
In the case of the C-5 that "(ohne Bordwanne)" piece is documented for WNr. 367 in the LP 18/3 V-Muster of 1-Nov-40 in BA-MA RL 3/991. (Frustratingly the earlier JFM V-Muster sheets from LP 18/1 & 18/2 are missing.)
Looking at the Baureihenübersichten for March and November 1942 in RL 3/952 & /948, the C-5 is simply described as a C-4 with BMW 801 engines and "ohne MG FF "M"", with no other indications of difference. So the C-5 is characterized as a Musterflugzeug fitted out as an Erkunder with a fixed forward-firing armament reduced to MG only.
The C-7 here is described as a C-5 with the "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17" and the MG FF restored. The latter I think can only refer to the forward-firing armament.
So what we appear to have in the C-7 is an aircraft fitted for a large strat-recce camera in the rear bomb bay, and primarily for CG and structural reasons, the rearward-firing twin-MG installation in a ventral blister mounted to starboard with its front positioned just under the leading edge of the wing, and having a forward-facing air scoop on its underside. Because the new installation and ammo containers have now blocked off the access from the rear cockpit, the mast for the trailing aerial has been relocated from the port fuselage underside to the forward starboard side of the new ventral armament blister. Or that is what I think I see.
With the full forward-firing armament restored this would have been a very heavy aircraft when used as a fighter. The sparkling performance reported for it one presumes relates only to the airframe with all armament removed and the bug-eye nose restored. Certainly no ventral or forward-firing armament can be discerned in the purported later photos of its use in the recce role.