[Günther Ott]

There is no discrepancy to C-Amt Monatsmeldung or GL/C Flugzeugprogramm and any of my statements.

It is absolutely correct that 65 Fw 200 C-5s were procured and accepted. C-5 differed from C-4 models only by an improved defensive armament, basic protoype being C-4 W.Nr. 0114. Subsequently C-6, C-7 and C-8 were originating from C-5 series as of W.Nr. 201, but differed again by armament modifications (and the C-8 with increased fuel capacity), but hardly to be identified externally.

It is also correct that the conversion for Kehl IV operations was to be performed by Dornier - contracted by DWF (which is Dornier Friedrichshafen) but actually done at Schwäbisch-Hall on a grand total of 87 out of the 100 originally on order.

This conversion was performed as of October 1943 in parallel to the series production ending at Cottbus in February 1944 (with the last delivered in March). Consequently Fw 200s already operational with 3. and III./K.G. 40 in Norway and France were ferried to Schwäbisch-Hall as well as new deliveries from Cottbus. This included all models of Fw 200 C-4 and up. There is no basis for any assumption that C-3, C-4 and C-5 became C-6, C-7 and C-8 respectively after Kehl conversion. C-3s were excluded anyhow and a conversion of this model, intended earlier for Kehl III operations as Fw 200 C-3/U7, did not materialize. Since all converted Fw 200s were equipped identically, the designation Fw 200 C-5/FK (FK for Flugkörper) was adopted for them all.

Also to take this up: Since there was no Fw 200 C-8/U1 to C-8/U9 there could not have been any C-8/U10, which is frequently linked in literature with Kehl/Hs293 conversions. It's just pure imagination of authors or those who copied it again and again. But unfortunately - as we all know - this does not apply only to the history of the Fw 200