Junkers Ju 88, Vol. 3. Day and Nightfighters. Development - Equipment - Operations 1940 - 1945.

[Peter Achs]

1. yes, but maybe got a V-number

2. don't know what you're referring to

3. no idea, 0096 was in Dessau in March 1940 for modifications after the stay in Rechlin

4. ok, went to Z-Staffel/KG 30 as 4D+OH in April 1940, later 1./NJG 2

5. yes, nonense, these are different planes, Ju 88 A-1/0015/DD+IA was used for testing the heating and de-icing system, crashed in February 1940, Ju 88 V15/0007 was used as a engine testbed for BMW 139 and later BMW 801, had been at BMW in Munich since mid-1940. Z15 (W-Nr. 0363) was the 15th converted Ju 88 C-4 including the prototypes of this subtype.

6. yes, nonsense

The Ju 88 V7 never had anything to do with the development of the Zerstörer. Got the solid nose during conversion to a liaison aircraft in 1942.

[INM@RLM]

Brilliant - THANK YOU for the many clarifications, Peter.

Point 2 was a reference to the photo which appeared at the top of page 461 in Green: Warplanes of the Third Reich (1970) and here at p.53. (The Stkz. definitely begins with CN+.)

To your response on point 3 with 0096 being returned from Rechlin to Dessau in March 1940, that fits neatly alongside the first 'real' C-1 of the twenty being 0122 documented as delivered on 29-Feb-40 (in RL 3/2184).

Nice to have some hard evidenced facts at last, as well as stakes put through the hearts of the zombies.

[Peter Achs]

The official "Musterflugzeug Zerstörerserie" was the W-Nr. 0123 (VB+VJ). It was tested at Junkers from February 1940 and from March 1940 at the E-Stellen Rechlin and Tarnewitz.

[INM@RLM]

Another gem, Peter. Thank you.

I think it is safe to say then that one of these two cases applied to this aircraft:
either Musterflugzeug 0123 (like 0096) was never counted as part of the procurement order for twenty C-1s (because these were both covered by LC development orders and not by any LE standard procurement order)
OR
0123 was subsequently counted as one of the 20 deliveries reported in the Meldeliste but not until it was released following completion of the trials at Rechlin and Tarnewitz. That must have been in April 1940 since after that there is a one month break with no Ju 88 C deliveries recorded in May 1940.

One other takeaway from this is that these C-1s were being accepted as deliveries even before the Musterflugzeug had been successfully put through its paces at Rechlin and Tarnewitz.

That the preceding example, 0122, was the first recorded C-1 delivery to the LE still meets the other evidence that the identities of the first ten C-1s were all bunched closely together. (The Jan-40 Meldeliste notes "f. Umbau als Zerstörer sind ausserd. 10 fertiggestellt"

[INM@RLM]

To your post #50, FalkeEins, I fear I did a good job of confusing you, for which, my apologies.

The words I was referring to on these pages were very specific. So:

p.9 "Ju 88 WNr. 0098, CN+NR is also identified here on p.9 by one author as "the first Ju 88 C production aircraft".
Following Peter Achs' inputs the reasonable conclusion is that this statement is erroneous. It was actually WNr. 0096 that was involved and this was not a production aircraft but rather the "prototype of the Zerstörer, first called Sa-2 (Sonderausführung 2)".
Hence, I wasn't at any point referring to "the captions on p9 & 10".

p.53 "by the other author as "the first prototype C-1 (W.Nr.0096, coded CN+NR)". Again with the benefit of Peter's clarifications the reasonable conclusion is that this statement is the more correct one. (Correct would be the first Ju 88 Zerstörer prototype.) All I would caveat this with, is that the follow-on words in the caption on p.53 of "a batch of 20 aircraft" are ambiguous, and could be read in a manner that would take you to an incorrect conclusion. In short, when it comes down to the accounting, 0096 was not one of the 20 C-1 conversions ordered from JFM by the RLM but was in addition to these 20.

Overall, it would seem that Becker did not have the same depth of data as Peter has researched, and Becker was also tempted in places into repeating observations from earlier publications that were in error.

[FalkeEins]

Thanks Nigel for additional clarifications! Thank you Peter for data that I've not seen elsewhere in posts #51 and #53. To be fair to Mr. Streetly he does say the Ju 88 V7 was not part of the Zerstörer 'programme', albeit in a slightly round about way. Pick up any other book on the Ju 88, eg Medcalf on p34 of Vol I (Classic 23) labels the photo of CN+NR as the V7....

[AndyMa]

A very minor typo.
Ju88C-1 WNr.0142, lost on 7 June 1940, is correctly given as 4D+MH in the text on Page 58, but incorrectly captioned as 4D+NH in the photo on Page 59.