[INM@RLM]

Indeed getting there, Peter.

Going back and looking there is indeed a damaged M8+FH in the background of the photo on p.22, and if you say this was WNr. 3135 then that aligns with the rest of the evidence for the D-series.

My #76 though did not touch on the p.22 photo, but related only to the photos on pp.13, 21 & 23 in which each of the M8+FH portrayed is captioned as WNr. 3171.

WNr. 3135 therefore is part of a different conversation. Turning to that different aspect then, your posts highlight that at least two different Bf 110 Ds, 3135 & 3171, were marked as M8+FH and served with I./ZG 76 during the first eight months of 1940.

Your contention then, based on the analysis of better quality prints than the published reproductions here, is that the M8+FH on p.13 is actually the same M8+FH as that shown crashlanded on 2nd June in the photo on p.23, however, during recovery and repair it has now been stripped of its Dackelbauch.

Looking hard and long again at the photo on p.13, I now think you are correct. That is actually a D-series rear fuselage, rather than a C-series end cap. We don't see the dinghy cable release presumably because of the lack of resolution and the darkness of this area in the reproduction. My mistakes then.

So to summarize what I understand you to be saying is that:
M8+FH in the photos on p.13, in the background on p.22 and crashed on p.23 are all of WNr. 3135 and therefore none of these is of WNr. 3171,
whilst the M8+FH in the photo on p.21 with the readable WNr. of 3171 is a different and later successor aircraft.

Well, we both agree that the M8+FH on p.13 is not WNr. 3171 as captioned, and now your studies have concluded that the M8+FH on p.23 is also not WNr. 3171. Two more corrections for the Errata then rather than just one.

Does that about cover it?
Thank you for these corrections and clarifications.