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

[INM@RLM]

There is one other significant point worth mentioning. An extraordinary claim is made by the authors in the table on p.14 and the text on p.12. This is to the effect that all of the Ju 88s re-delivered during 1940 following repair by industry were retreaded to become additional Ju 88 C fighter conversions.
The words used are: in the table "Ju 88 C-1/C-2 (aircraft from the W.Nr.0021-0655 range that were repaired)" and in the text as "A further 68 damaged examples were repaired between February 1940 and October 1941 (a breakdown of monthly Ju 88 Zerstörer production figures is given in Table 1.3, see page 14)."

Unfortunately this is a major misinterpretation of the data. As the 'Meldeliste fertiggestellter Reparaturflugzeuge' sheets of BA-MA RL 3/2184 evidence, in fact these figures report the Ju 88s of all variants repaired by the aircraft industry, and happens these included only two Ju 88 C re-deliveries during 1940. (The 1941 figures do accurately portray the eleven repaired Ju 88 Cs.)

Except for the July 1940 figure the monthly totals of repaired aircraft deliveries in the table are accurate. However, their actual composition as documented in BA-MA RL 3/2184 was:

• 1 in April 1940: a singleton Ju 88 A-1 Aufkl [deliveries of the Ju 88 A-1 (F) conversion from JFM had begun in January 1940]
• 4 in May 1940, comprising: 3 x Ju 88 A-1 plus 1 x Ju 88 A-1 Aufkl
• 2 in June 1940 comprising: 2 x Ju 88 A-1
• 4 in July 1940 (mis-printed here as 3), comprising: 3 x Ju 88 A-1 Kpf plus 1 x Ju 88 A Zerst
• 2 in August 1940, comprising: 2 x Ju 88 A-1 Kpf
• 17 in September 1940, comprising: 17 x Ju 88 A-1 Kpf
• 12 in October 1840, comprising: 10 x Ju 88 A-1 Kpf plus 2 x Ju 88 A-5
• 9 in November 1940, comprising: 7 x Ju 88 A-1 plus 1 x Ju 88 A-5 plus 1 x Ju 88 C
• 7 in December 1940, comprising: 1 x Ju 88 A plus 4 x Ju 88 A-1 plus 2 x Ju 88 A-5

Hence, a total of 58 Ju 88 re-deliveries in 1940 rather than the 57 sum of the figures published here, but including only two examples of repaired Ju 88 Cs (one in July and one in November).

What is true is that the surviving evidence does indicate that at a minimum a further five Ju 88s bearing 01xx-series Werk-Nummern were converted into Ju 88 C fighters, and the probability is this took place during repair or major overhaul. But this work can only have been carried out in a Luftwaffe Werft, and since the first records for these identities only begin in the last half of 1940, undoubtedly all emerged Ju 88 C-2s.

So far from there being a significant Luftwaffe policy initiative to deliberately convert all Ju 88s repaired by the aircraft industry into Ju 88 fighters, all we actually see in the data is the low-volume return of Ju 88 fighters that had suffered damage and had now been repaired.

[edwest2]

"retreaded"? Seriously?

[INM@RLM]

More tongue-in-cheek perhaps?

Apologies if the meaning was unclear for you, but the usage is within dictionary definitions:

Cambridge Dictionary
retread verb [T] (REPEAT)
to do something that has been done before, without adding any new ideas:

• Clearly they have run out of ideas and are retreading old ground.
• The film retreads familiar horror and melodrama territory.
• There's money to be made in retreading cinematic steps and some studios exploit this.

Merriam Webster
retreaded; retreading
transitive verb
1 : to bond or vulcanize a new tread to the prepared surface of (a worn tire)
2 : to make over as if new e.g. retread an old plot

[INM@RLM]

At the risk of becoming marked as an obsessive in the matter of the early Ju 88 Cs, forgive me if I also register three niggles here. This in the hope that those working on future histories of the Ju 88 fighters will lay out answers that are considerably clearer and indeed may hopefully be recognized as definitive.

1. It is curious to see the old mislead of the Ju 88 V7 possibly being a Ju 88 Zerstörer Versuchsmaschine being given one more airing here on p.9. More than 30 years ago it could be deduced from Manfred Griehl's account of the Ju 88 that this was the confusion of a V-number with a Werk-Nummer, since Griehl established that the first Ju 88 Zerstörer Versuchsmaschine was in fact the Ju 88 V15 (aka 'Z15'), for which the airframe assigned was WNr. 0007, & Stkz. DD+IA.
Ju 88 WNr. 0098, CN+NR is also identified here on p.9 by one author as "the first Ju 88 C production aircraft", and then on p.53 by the other author as "the first prototype C-1 (W.Nr.0096, coded CN+NR)". Way back in 1970 this was the aircraft that William Green identified as the "Ju 88 C V1 alias Ju 88 V7" in his Warplanes of the Third Reich.
I have found no documents to support this, but the case seems to be that CN+NR was WNr. 0098, not 0096, and this aircraft was nothing more than an Erprobungsträger, and accordingly was never assigned a V-Nummer. This airframe simply served temporarily as the flying test bed and proof-of-concept aircraft used to establish the optimum arrangement for the fixed forward-firing armament, ammunition cans and feeds, and the forward armoured bulkhead, prior to JFM beginning design of the streamlined metal nose cone for the Ju 88 fighter derivative.
Since doubts have now been reintroduced on both points it would be a step forward to see each explained explicitly and definitively in some future account.

2. All unit codes ascribed to Ju 88 C fighters lost during the Norwegian campaign are stated here to have been assigned in the 4D+_H series. This indeed follows a long tradition. That Zerstörerstaffel/KG 30 would apply in parallel the exact same codes as those already in use by 1./KG 30 is - to these eyes - highly problematic, especially when the 4D+_Z code block was eminently convenient, completely logical, and without overlap of any other part of KG 30.
Since the individual aircraft identity letters used with the known 4D+_Z codes seem initially to have also all been assigned wholly from the second half of the alphabet, it was hardly possible to distinguish these Z.Sta. aircraft more clearly within KG 30.
What still needs an explanation though is why after Norway there are confirmations of some Ju 88 C-1s bearing 4D+_H codes whilst the 4D+_Z codes were also still in use. Twenty-one Ju 88 Cs had been delivered by the end of April 1940 and even after losing six there were still more than sufficient to equip a single Staffel. Thus it is conceivable that a Kette of Ju 88 fighters was assigned directly to 1./KG 30. However, for the present the mystery of why two KG 30 unit code allocations were in use simultaneously on Ju 88 Cs is simply ignored and hence has yet to be explored.

3. The Schatz photo at the foot of p.56 is a lot more interesting than the captioneers noticed. It is described here as portraying "a line up of KG 30 Ju 88 Cs". This it most assuredly is not. The two all-black Ju 88 Cs nearest the camera are clearly fitted with the longer A-5 wing and bear the 4. Staffel codes ??+FM and ??+CM. That is about as good evidence as one might ever find to confirm that these are the aircraft of 4./NJG 1 photographed presumably at Düsseldorf and most probably in the earlier part of the period mid-July to mid-September 1940 (at which point the unit was redesignated as 1./NJG 2). [A number of dates have been given for the formation of this second iteration of II./NJG 1, but the Einsatzbereitsschaft in BA-MA RL 2-III/708 (available online for download) explicitly evidences that the change took place after the 13th of July and before the 20th of July. Hence 15-Jul-40 is about as close as we can currently get to an effective date for the creation of this formation by redesignation.]
These all-black aircraft can only be Ju 88 C-2s (the first being delivered in April 1940 and then 12, 5, 1, 1, across the four months June to September 1940). Indeed, looking at the Einsatzbereitsschaft reports for the second half of July 1940 this photograph may have captured the whole of the serviceable part of the initial complement of 4./NJG 1.
The third aircraft from the camera with the RLM 70/71 over 65 finish, is assuredly a Ju 88 C-1 since the characteristic tip of the A-1 wing fitted to this airframe can be seen clearly outlined against the sky. The code of this machine was (imj) undoubtedly 4D+UZ and it was either WNr. 0137 itself or numbered very close to this identity. A close review of the original print may reveal more than can be distinguished in this reproduction, including a conclusive identification of the airfield.

But enough.

[INM@RLM]

A small addition and one correction to point 1 of post #44 above.

Somewhat belatedly, I checked for reports of WNr. 0098's subsequent career. Matti Salonen's database includes a record for the 20% damage of WNr. 0098 on 3-Apr-42 with Fl.Schule.d.Lw. (S); the aircraft now being shown as an A-5 i.e. it had been retrofitted with the longer wing introduced to series production with the Ju 88 A-5. This confirms that the use of 0098 as a flying test bed for the fighter armament configuration had indeed been only a passing phase.
Looking at the above I'm afraid I mis-spoke regarding the Stkz. of 0098. My statement needs to be corrected to: "I have found no documents to support this, but the case seems to be that CN+NT was WNr. 0098, and this aircraft was nothing more than an Erprobungsträger, and accordingly was never assigned a V-Nummer." (i.e. it was 0096 that was CN+NR, the aircraft apparently used as a development machine for the Ju 88 C-6, but subsequently reported 50% damaged on 8-Oct-41 as a Ju 88 C-1 with FFS C 6)

[Peter Achs]

0096 (CN+NR) was the prototype of the Zerstörer, first called Sa-2 (Sonderausführung 2), later "Z", then C-1, from January 1940 in Rechlin, April 1940 1./NJG 2.

0098 (CN+NT) was the prototype of the recce version (Sa-1, later A-1/F), also since January 1940 in Rechlin and Peenemünde for tests of the camera equipment and ranges.

[Jukka Juutinen]

What were the results of those camera tests? I know these serial numbers are for some people the Holy Grail, but I'd rather have an extensive spinning test analysis on the Ju 88.

[Peter Achs]

You can wish for whatever you want.

The installation of the cameras had to be improved, i.e. with glass panes and sliders to prevent dirt and the cameras had to be heated with an oven (Kärcher-Ofen) to prevent them from fogging up, etc.

[INM@RLM]

Ref post #46. Thank you very much for this, Peter.

What I get from your contributions is:

1. 0096 was the very first Ju 88 fighter prototype even though it was never assigned a V-Nummer.
2. The photo of the Ju 88 flying test bed pictured with the forward firing armament protruding through the vision panels is indeed actually of 0096, CN+NR. (So the statement and caption on p.53 are both correct, but those on pp.9 & 10 are erroneous.)
3. Subsequently 0096 was retrofitted with the metal fighter nose and formally re-christened as a C-1.
4. The date of April 1940 for 0096 in service with I./NJG 2 is an impossibility. I take it that 1940 is a typo for 1941.
5. The idea that there was a Z15, Ju 88 V15, WNr. 0007 that was a Ju 88 fighter prototype is simply made-up NONSENSE. (This was only an engine development and similar prototype.)
6. The idea that 0096, CN+NT was used as a development machine during the evolution of the Ju 88 C-6 is ALSO NONSENSE of similar provenance.

I'm sure you will correct me if I have strayed here from the straight and narrow.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

Every day is still a school day.

I'll say....

don't understand your point 5. Or is your point 1 (as per Peter's statement) superceding post 44 above, which says 'Manfred Griehl established that the first Ju 88 Zerstörer Versuchsmaschine was in fact the Ju 88 V15 for which the airframe assigned was WNr. 0007, & Stkz. DD+IA' (as per the first entry in the table on p.10). Becker says the V7 (WNr. 4947) was 'ein erster Schritt in diese Richtung' (no nose armament but a solid nose). Nor do I understand why the captions on p9 & 10 are incorrect. P9 refers to a 'fast transport' with the solid nose, while p10 is the Z19. I'm not sure if I understand why CN+NR would be the 'first' fighter prototype - it was a modified/rebuilt A-1 presumably just off the A-1 production line, with no solid nose. Becker refers to U16 Umbau...or 'Sonderausrüstung' rather than 'Sonderausführung'...