Fate or information about Ju 88 D-2 coded 4U+KL from 3(F)/123

[Adriano Baumgartner]

Good afternoon or evening to all.

Am seeking (if there is some) details about the career of a Ju 88 D-2 coded 4U+KL from 3(F)/123.

I comprehend that several werknummers may have the same code 4U+KL.
I just would like to know if it (or they) were shot down, eventually and flown by whom?

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-88/(F...ties-1940.html

Adriano

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Adriano,

Here is what I've got for that VBKz:

- 20 July 1941: Ju 88 A-5 W.Nr. 340 "4U+KL", 3.(F)/AGr. 123 lost cause unknown over the North Sea. Crew (FF) Fw Rudolf Ritter, (B) Ofw. Gerhard Bauer, (Bf) Gefr. Oswald Mittelsten-Sché, (Bs) Fw. Paul Thoms all MIA. Source: GQM (#3-5) via Michael Balss's loss list.

- 13 October 1942: Ju 88 D-1 W.Nr. 1449 "4U+KL", 3.(F)/AGr. 123, lost cause unknown over the North Sea. Crew (FF) Fw Friedrich Holler, (B) Fw. Gottfried Heudeck, (Bf) Uffz. Heinrich Paulus and (Bs) Uffz. Herbert Krause all MIA. Source: GQM (#7-11) via Michael Balss's loss list.

- 29 April 1943: Ju 88 D-1 W.Nr. 430636 "4U+KL", 3.(F)/AGr. 123, lost over the Atlantic, cause unknown. Crew (FF) Ofw Rudi Kienader, (B) Ltn. Rudolf Gruber, (Bf) Ofw. Rudolf Egger, and (Bs) Uffz. Erwin Leinbach all MIA. Source: GQM (#10-17) via Michael Balss's loss list.

- 11 May 1944: Ju 88 T-1 W.Nr. 430940 "4U+KL", 3.(F)/AGr. 123, lost over the Mediterranean whilst carrying out convoy reconnaissance duty, cause unknown along routes St.Martin - 04-O/203 (Mallorca) - 03-O/272 (Algiers) - 871 (Dellys) - 372 - 04-O/302 (Menorca) - St.Martin. No W/T messages received. Crew (FF) Fw. Herbert Grotelüschen, (B) Ltn. Hermann Krüger and (Bf) Fw. Alfred Köhler all MIA. Source: Liste (M.S.); FLUGZEUG 2/90, p. 59 via Michael Balss's loss list.

Cheers
Marc

[Nick Beale]

That last one almost certainly had something to do with the German operation that day against convoy ELEMENT (UGS-40) in the Med.

A possible match from my own piece this convoy (for which I didn't think of checking on 3.(F)/123):

Two or three shadowers were in contact with UGS-40 in the hour before the attack and at 20.35 the P-39s piloted by Capitaine Philippe Maurin and Lt. Linteau of GC 1/4 shot down a shadower 16 km astern of the convoy. This aircraft, the first to be picked up on radar, had been plotted 40 km north of Mount Chenoua at 20.00 hrs. It flew south until it was 8 km north of Cherchell, then turned east along the coast, flying at sea level before the plot faded at Cap Caxine. It was seen from the ground and identified as a Ju 88 making about 500 km/h.

The Flugzeug article says 4U+KL took off at 1756 (GMT+2). If the Ju 88 cruised at around 300 km/h from St. Martin-de-Craux it would be off the Algerian coast by about 1930, so the timings appear to fit.

I owe my information the French victory claim to the late Frank Olynyk.

[Chris Goss]

2o Jul 41 could have been the ac claimed as damaged by 258 Sqn off Lowestoft. 13 Oct 42 was probably one of the 3 Ju 88s claimed by 248 Sqn SW or Lorient (not over the North Sea). They claimed one damaged and two destroyed-Wekusta 51 lost one while 3./123 lost 2

[Adriano Baumgartner]

Monsieur Haldimann, Nick and Chris,

Thank you very much for the information I was looking for.

My gratitude for that. I thought I had an image from a KG 40 machine (it was sold as such, at Bordeaux-Mérignac) and is of 4U+KL, this is why I was looking for the histories of those machines.

Again, my gratitude for that.

Adriano

[edNorth]

Adriano
W.Nr. 088 0340: Definitions (subject to Historical correctness, but reality often has twists but these do not affect definations!) Built as original Ju 88 A-1 (later) as shown on the web-site skins (short-Wingspan) - in version transit period July 1940 - when transition from A-1 (later) to A-5 was happening - then defies as A-5 (without cameras) or A-5 F (with cameras) with longer wings (right on or after delivery) but was not Ju 88 D-2 as stated. The A-1 F and A-5 F had their RB mapping cameras inside the rear bomb-bay, but D-2 had the cameras aft of the rear-bay Spant 15 (Bulkhead frame 15). JFM has no records of this modifications (as a program) as it was routene upgrade by August to end of 1940 and involved longer wings (with wing heating channels in leading edge/whole wing). Later internal Kuto was also added and A-6 / A-8 versions were dropped.

Ju 88 A-5 Fs (Recce-Bombers) are often mis-stated D-2s but the original D-2s were only after W.Nr. 088 0772 (not after 0765 as Medcalf states). The D-1 was similar to D-2 except the engines/props. In fact prototype for D-1 was ex-D-2 0778 DE+DZ as by then was finally available the Jumo 211 F/J engines and VS 11 props with auto-proppeller controls (but these were in short supply thrughout summer 1941 and up to 60 Ju 88 D-1 standing at given one time at Bernburg with these lacking.)
But many of the (298) A-1/5 F “Fernerkúnder” already delivered to the Luftwaffe were "re-designated D-2" (or just called that after repairs or overhauls, and “A-5 F” most often vanishes from records).
But some sources state that the Ju 88 D-2 start at W.Nr. 0765 but this author has found no proof of that statement, but one of the earliest likely was the W.Nr. 0772 (and followed by 65 mounted in-between them remaining A-5 or C-2/4 Zerstörers, up to WNr. 088 0890). Of these 888 were accepted by the Luftwaffe but two were rejected. (“JFM FSD-Nachbau, Fertigung und Ausbringung" 31.07.40) but D-2s were made in February and March 1941, or parralell to first A-4s, D-1s come later.

For everybodys information, despite my quietness here on responding to specific losses request infos, I am (past winter) working on the more deeper Ju 88 issues & inccuracies that are still repeated by past and modern authors, notably Welsh and German - details specificly researched for my book of course - and explain/proofing "with no compromizes".

There is still regularily published wrongs "William Green style" on Ju 88´s many versions, notably the Ju 88 B V and A-6U (sic) and Mistels (as late 2017). There is one that dances the thin line of the good and the really horrible and yet not admitting. (Note: This is totally beside the correct writing defination style of the RLM designations and the official RLM order for these, seen and read in NARA RG.242 T177, R321 or NASM ADRC T2 rolls, but I have read, but lost where I read that (May or October 2017). Re-finding has failed, sooooo, a hint to the Doc Roll Nr./Frame be greatly appriciated. I bet some nerd here knows ... ) -Ed.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edNorth

I am (past winter) working on the more deeper Ju 88 issues & inccuracies that are still repeated by past and modern authors, notably Welsh and German - details specificly researched for my book of course - and explain/proofing "with no compromizes". -Ed.

Ed, How about you try contributing information without denigrating anyone in the process? It really isn't that difficult.

Meanwhile, my guess is that your own long-promised book will remain free of errors for exactly as long as it remains unpublished. Just about anyone who has ever actually published anything will know how they can become blind to mistakes that are immediately apparent to others.

[Larry deZeng]

"Truth is in the eyes of the beholder." ¹
[Origin unknown]

L.

¹ Two people witnessing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time will relate different accounts of what they witnessed, the difference being in the details.

[edNorth]

"Ed, How about you try contributing information without denigrating anyone in the process? It really isn't that difficult."

I am not contributing, merely correcting statement with reasons and facts.

Apologies, I aim have fewer (other) errors than the german, welsh or american, but then these will be research or writing ones, because not finding the correct document or reading any wrong - not errors that are based on rumour, popularity, lazyness or later time 1950/60s fiction. Sales figures for my work do not matter anymore, its gone well beyond size that anyone cares buy or read in one go (at least). Debugging (lists) will be done in V2.0, as to update V1.0 (to save printing paper and your investment go to waste-paper).

That said, I have gone very far to uncover un-interesting facts (truths), not merely re-cycling fighter this and fighter that, and already way past all mainstream docs, HW 5, and well into NARA, NASM and BARCH. Examples are 14-15th Stkz. for V-nummer aircraft carrying Jumo 004s, BMWs, Walters, brake parachutes, towing gliders, wire launch, MS/T, torpedos, X-4s, degaussing, static ones even and rejected. Steinways are also covered, as is why Ju 88 was as it was (and Ju 85 details in relation to Ju 88), and wind tunnel model data (sizes), why its design criteria was as it was, other test a/c than V-numbered are also detail listed and what they did, where and when. All W.Nr. batches and blocks are covered, and many individual conversions, but still yet finding more. Totals actually built and breakdown will also be stated.

But I do not name any indiviuals. All my writing will include blatant critical statements (I have made contributions that the author asking has blatanty ignored but thank others here for their contibution, even if its wrong).
But anyone can see I do not mention american (forgot him) but insignifcant omission (one German has slaughtered his works publically so any one knows). Nick, is not welch, is he? He is excused if be that, and I presume his writings are better today. Nuff said. -ed.

deZeng comment, two (or more) do have different views (perspected), but how do you define it in the eyes of one knowing (but not admitting) or them not knowing why, but accepting older writings as Gospel?

But it does not help the Ju 88 in any way.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edNorth

"Ed, How about you try contributing information without denigrating anyone in the process? It really isn't that difficult."

I am not contributing, merely correcting statement with reasons and facts.

So contributing, then. And I’m sure everyone on the forum is well aware by now of just how highly you rate your own, hitherto unseen work. Should it ever be published we’ll find out how good it actually is.