[INM@RLM]

Turns out also one cannot place unlimited faith in the RLM's Baureihenübersichten, at least not for the non-standard and the one-off specials.

Widening the search, reproduced in Griehl's Ju 88, Star of the Lw. is a JFM works cut-away drawing of the Ju 88 C-5 armament showing the two MG 17s to be forward-firing in a blister mounted on the port underside of the fuselage, the midpoint of the blister aligned with the trailing edge at the wing root. That does match precisely with what is seen in the photo at p.13 except for the air scoop visible in the photo on the blister’s underside.

What this drawing also establishes conclusively is that the C-5 was not a Hilfserkunder. Fitted in both forward and aft bomb bays are extra fuel tanks, with the rear bay also accommodating the ammunition containers for the MG 17s in the blister below, but the drawing shows no rear fuselage camera mount to be present, the position of which further back in the fuselage is clearly shown in the equivalent works drawing for the C-4.

There is also a JFM GA drawing of the C-5 in Becker's book (Schwere Jäger und Zerstörer der Luftwaffe 1939-1945, 1999) at p.70 showing the exact same layout and configuration. With this positioning it would be entirely logical to incorporate the mast for the trailing radio antenna of the FuG 10 into this MG 17 blister.

So this photo does indeed show the forward-firing ventral armament of the Ju 88 C-5 mounted on an airfame without a Bodenwanne, and given the size of the fitting, the term Waffenwanne fits better than the alternative Griehl mentioned of Waffentropfen. The air scoop seen here appears to have a small hole just in front. Conceivably this was actually a suction vent to ensure fumes and sparks were safely vented away from the aircraft through the scoop rather than accumulating within the blister.

In short, the caption on p.13 is accurate, and my 'correction' is an error. So please now scrub my comments on the C-5/C-7 armament/Erkunder points above.

Now clear then is that what should have been stated in the RLM Baureihenübersichten was "Nach hinten Einbau v. 2 MG 17" rather than "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17", and this should have formed part of the description of the C-5 not just the C-7, although this extra feature was then carried over to the C-7. The statement in the March 1942 Baureihenübersicht that the C-5 was “ohne MG FF” is similarly without foundation and is definitively contradicted by the JFM works drawing. The reference to an additional MG FF in the November 1942 release of this RLM listing is also erroneous.

Every day is still a school day. My apologies to the authors for what turns out to have been a complete mis-direct.