Fw 200 C-5, the invisible sub-type? A review of published and documentary sources.

[INM@RLM]

VERY VERY helpful, Rasmussen. MAJOR THANK YOU.

On the C-4s these Kracke Flugbuch records support my interpretation that early examples of the C-5 were still plated as C-4s. From your post, this seems to have been the case for the first ten examples of the C-5 with W.Nr. 0201 to 0210. When reported in the loss records, however, these were consistently identified as Fw 200 C-5s:
W.Nr. 0201 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 02-Sep-43 with 9./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0202 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 31-Jul-43 with 7./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0203 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 damaged 25% on 23-Oct-43 with III./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0203 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 11-May-44 with Stab III./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0204 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 17-Jan-44 with 3./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0205 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 40% damaged on 20-Jun-43 with 3./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0206 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 27-Oct-43 with 7./KG 40.
W.Nr. 0207 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 01-Dec-43 with 8./KG 40.

On the C-8s your Kracke Flugbuch records show deliveries of these eight aircraft starting earlier than I had in my reconstruction and the conversions being applied to only every second aircraft from W.Nr. 0250 up to 0256. The loss record shows 0257 as a C-8, and 0259 we already know was further converted to a C-5/FK by FoWu. That leaves only one identity of the later 8 genuine C-8 deliveries still to be pinned down: provisionally I'm suggesting this was W.Nr. 0260. So the eight later C-8s would now appear to be: W.Nr. 0250, 0252, 0254, 0256/7/8/9/60 with W.Nr. 0259 after being further converted at FoWu to a C-5/FK. (The only other batch of C-8s being of course W.Nr. 0223/4/5.)

The C-6s you listed from Kracke, match almost perfectly to the identities I have categorised as C-5s up to and including W.Nr. 0243, with just these four differences:
- W.Nr. 0221 is recorded by Kracke as a C-6 but the documentary evidence is this W.Nr. had been reserved for the C-5/U1 long before that aircraft was actually built. (See the ‘Baumuster-Übersicht Fw 200 C, Stand vom 20.II.1943’ )
- W.Nr. 0224 is actually confirmed as a C-8 in its loss record, and in my reconstruction is the second of the batch of three C-8s assigned to I./KG 40 in Aug-43.
- W.Nr. 0245 & 0247. Of these the latter, W.Nr. 0247, was captured intact at the end of the war as a C-5/FK, but it could have started life as a C-6, as indeed could 0245.

Reassuringly, included within Kracke's C-6 listing are two examples independently corroborated as being of the C-6 sub-type (1943 variant using my terminology).
W.Nr. 0214 loss report has this as a C-6;
W.Nr. 0237 is independently corroborated as being plated as a C-6 from inspection of the wreckage.
Kracke also includes as a C-6 W.Nr. 0219 which I already suspected to be a C-6 (1943 variant).

Not so much loss data available for these aircraft listed by Kracke as C-6s but which I believe to have actually been C-5s. So far we have just this:
W.Nr. 0211 reported as a Fw 200 C-5 100% lost on 17-Aug-43 (reported as a 2./KG 40 100% loss; my interpretation is this was a 2./KG 40 crew in a III./KG 40 aircraft).

To help clarify matters a little more, what would be invaluable would be to see the flight dates linked to each of these Kracke W.Nr. identities, most especially those for the C-6 identities. Are we talking about what I refer to as the 1944 variant of the C-6 designation, or is it the 1943 variant, or is this actually a mixture of both the two later flavours of the C-6?

[Martin Gleeson]

Hello INM@RLM,

Thank you very much for the latest detailed and very helpful post on the C-1/C-2.

It is the fates and service histories of these early Condors that interests me the most. I will acquire a copy of the AIR 40/154 document from TNA soon and the details on individual aircraft from the https://fw200-restaurierung-bremen.d...werknummer-00/ link were very helpful.

Many thanks again.

Regards,

Martin.

[INM@RLM]

A pleasure, Martin.

One caveat on AIR 40/154 at TNA. Although rich in sub-type information on the C-1 & C-2 it is barren as to material on the individual identities of these sixteen aircraft.

Also in AIR 40/254 I found only a single C-1/-2 snippet: one photograph of the wreckage of C-1, W.Nr. 0003 crash-landed at Moura on 08-Feb-41 (without any surviving commentary or context on this file). However, we can be sure of the identity because you can see the exact same trees in the background of another photo of this wreck printed at the foot of Goss Classic p.38.

And that is all I found, but a second careful look by you might turn up something more. If you contact me at inm.at.rlm@gmail.com I'll happily share with you what I have.

At the level where you are working my only two contributions are these:

the apparent conundrum that only W.Nr. 0008, 0012 & 0014 were still recorded in the Änderunsanweisung as surviving in service by 18-Aug-41, yet there are two later reports of damage apparently relating to C-1, W.Nr. 0013: 25% on 08-Jul-42 at Orleans-Bricy with IV./KG 40 and 40% on 08-Dec-42 at Vaernes with 12./KG 40.
So perhaps my picture is too simplistic and a few Change Notices were deliberately restricted to aircraft still in service with operational units? Or was this a typo in the Fw 200 Änderungsanweisung Nr. 12 and it was W.Nr. 0013 that was meant instead of 0012? {A study of the Änderunsanweisungen for the Bf 109 shows many small inconsistencies between the W.Nr. ranges assigned to different sub-types in different Change Notices. Fortunately there are enough of those for the 109 to carefully pick out data that looks to be the most valid.}
You will have already picked up the point that although I wrote that W.Nr. 0008 was included in the list of survivors at 18-Aug-41, in fact this C-1 seems to have actually been lost on 15-Jun-41. What I had I missed was that this Änderunsanweisung was actually signed off on 23-May-41, so prior to the loss of 0008 in Jun-41, and it was only the distribution of the Change Note that was delayed until 18-Aug-41.

I have a suspicion that F8+EK, the C with Bramo 132 engines in the photos at: Goss Units p.33 and Goss Classic p.92 & top of p.93 is the second C-2, W.Nr. 0016 and that this aircraft was used as the Erprobungsträger for trialling the DL 15 turret in the A Stand (subsequently standardized for the Fw 200 C-3). So despite what is in the captions this aircraft was never a C-3 with BMW 132 H engines (!)
All these photos have been artfully posed to conceal the tail scoreboard markings, but there is just a smidgeon of one corner visible in the photos at Goss Units p.33 (engines stopped) and at Goss Classic p.92 top (engines running) and that for now is the very slim basis for my attribution.

Over to you.

[Dénes Bernád]

In my opinion, William Green's tome, Warplanes of the Third Reich should not be used as referebce any more. I remember using it for my first in depth rsearch, related to the Heinkel He 112, back in the 1990s, and almost every piece of informaiton contained in this book was erroneous.

Green's book was one of my covered prizes in the 1980s, I held high esteem of it, it was a great "icebreaker" of its time as far as the Luftwaffe concerns; however, it's just not relevant anymore for serious researchers. My opinion.

[Denniss]

https://web.archive.org/web/20170301.../RLMJan44.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170301.../RLMFeb44.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20070928.../RLMMar44.html
lists only C-5 as production version in early 44
also has data regarding umbau versions

[INM@RLM]

Denniss, thank you for digging out those archived pages from Olve Dybvig's Special Interest Group Luftwaffe in Norway web site, now sadly defunct. This material was extracted for Olve by Seaplanes from the US NARA T-177 microfilm and I thought it had been lost completely from the web. Taken as a whole it contains a few slips (but not on anything relating to the Fw 200), however, it's still very useful and it's good to know that it can still be found by anyone with a mouse.
It was this same material that I documented in Post #3 of this thread (third set of evidence), except that I used copies taken directly from T-177. Those were extracted for me many years ago by a professional US researcher.

Dénes, you put the William Green situation very well. ("almost every piece of information contained in this book was erroneous") However, as my absolutely favourite History teacher used to say: "Gentlemen, it's not what happened that's important, it's what people think happened that really matters."
For any new explanation to be understandable, the starting point has to be the recognisable one of "what people think happened". In this area what is in Green is a near-perfect picture of "what people think happened", so - for me - Green is both the obligatory launch point, and because he is often so off-beam, he is also the perfect foil. Some interesting and innocent fun can then be had by starting with what Green states to be the case and comparing that to what can be found in primary sources documenting what actually happened. When somebody claimed to be a historian, making these comparisons was once expected to be a normal part of their job description.
In sum, I fully agree that using Green does not constitute serious research (and never has). However, I cannot agree that William Green is "just not relevant anymore for serious researchers." Often there is no other well-recognized source in English that can be used as the baseline for a comparison with the real findings of serious research. (If you are going to take someone on a journey best you start from somewhere that is already familiar to them.) My opinion.

In a separate category, we also have the authors whose books continue to roll off the presses, and yet who still seem to rely implicitly on every single silly thing that Green ever hoovered up and regurgitated. The trouble with (and the joy of) books is that they can be around for a very long time. [Think Gutenberg Bible, except that one was actually proof-read.] In the sub-world of publishing from which the books on our interests come, editors as effective quality-control backstops have generally been conspicuous only by their (almost?) total absence. So the constant question is this, when something silly is published, will the world be better served and better informed if the individuals that have actually delved into the subject simply say nothing? Or is saying nothing actually complicity? You will be able to work out where I stand on this.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

You will be able to work out where I stand on this.

The humility to realise that one's own work may one day be improved upon (if not actively derided) by others would seem to me an excellent starting point. The pioneering writers of the 1950s and 60s, working with what they then had, were the reason that so many people became interested in the subject at all and for that they deserve credit.

[Chris Goss]

Couldn't agree more, Nick. I remember Peter Cornwell saying how many times people had stated how he had got things wrong for him to remind them that he had written BofB T&N 35+ years before and at that time, the information he was using was the best available....then. As a published author myself, I would be a fool to say what I have written is the definitive; I am always open to constructive criticism and correction

[INM@RLM]

Forgive me then if I add a little more context.

Green's WotTR is a magnificent read, a hugely popular and influential book and a great personal achievement. None of that is at issue.

William Green was an outstanding journalist, but his search of what history was to hand simply didn't go either very far or particularly deep. (A year after the publication of WotTR, it took only part of a day with the Focke-Wulf documents in the Imperial War Museum to discover that the Fw 190 F-1 and F-2 were the exact same aircraft sub-types as the Fw 190 A-4/U3 and A-5/U3. That statement is also in the aircraft handbook.)
Green also wasn't very discriminating or critical in his use of sources. Some were clearly poisoned and contained what were almost certainly deliberately manufactured falsehoods, but, since journalists would rather go to prison that reveal their sources, we now don't know where these came from.
The result is WotTR is riddled with errors and a lot of what we grew up with was actually fibs.
Some of those errors were howlers so egregious they should never have been allowed to appear in print even at the time. (If, in the same book, MW50 technology only appeared in service with Bf 109s and Fw 190s in 1944 how could this credibly have been used with Condors in the summer of 1941?) This was not a case of using the best information available because the best information available doesn't contain wild and obvious contradictions. It didn't take a genius to check the Luftwaffe handbooks - there were enough of them in British hands. Green simply didn't use them.
So, it's a complex picture, and these points need to be set alongside the credit and the nostalgia.

I continue to enjoy reading Green's WotTR for his superb writing style, making a pretty technical subject readily accessible and above all immensely interesting to non-technical readers, and because digging out what we can now show to actually be errors is endlessly fascinating of itself. The facility of Green's style is the enduring part of his achievements.

The disappointment at where we are now is that not infrequently use of the best information available simply isn't happening. This is not a blanket criticism: there are honourable and remarkable exceptions. But not infrequently, rather than the bar being raised it remains at the same low height with a bunch of the same old fairy tales being trotted out. Newer and better information, leave alone the best available sometimes doesn't even get a look-in. The right result is we see the bar raised with each new book that appears.

Humility is exactly the right launch point. Undertaking basic research in the obvious sources should not be beneath anybody working in this field.
If a book is to cover the development of a German aircraft design start with the obvious fundamentals. At the very least, check over the aircraft and aeroengine manuals, check through the German monographs on the type - some of the research may be invaluable even if some the text is well off-course, consult carefully the relevant historical studies published in German - some of the more recent ones are first rate and bang on target, dig into at least some of the original documents, reach out more widely, even email me at INM.at.RLM@gmail.com. If I've done some digging on your subject, you are welcome to share gratis whatever I have. I'm not looking for credit or even acknowledgement. It'll be enough to see the information used fittingly - or superseded by something even fuller and more soundly based.

The aim is better books; not the same old, same old from Green, but works that demonstrate genuine effort to use the best information available.
The explicit messages for writers then are these:
Don't even open WotTR. There are no good excuses for repeating Green's myths of half a century ago. To do so is a declaration of incapacity.
Please raise the game, look a bit further, dig a bit deeper, truly try to use the best information available and move your subject forward a meaningful step.
In sum, please try make your book really count, not just as another notch on the bedhead.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

Denniss, thank you for digging out those archived pages from Olve Dybvig's Special Interest Group Luftwaffe in Norway web site, now sadly defunct. This material was extracted for Olve by Seaplanes from the US NARA T-177 microfilm and I thought it had been lost completely from the web. Taken as a whole it contains a few slips (but not on anything relating to the Fw 200), however, it's still very useful and it's good to know that it can still be found by anyone with a mouse.
It was this same material that I documented in Post #3 of this thread (third set of evidence), except that I used copies taken directly from T-177. Those were extracted for me many years ago by a professional US researcher.

Dénes, you put the William Green situation very well. ("almost every piece of information contained in this book was erroneous") However, as my absolutely favourite History teacher used to say: "Gentlemen, it's not what happened that's important, it's what people think happened that really matters."
For any new explanation to be understandable, the starting point has to be the recognisable one of "what people think happened". In this area what is in Green is a near-perfect picture of "what people think happened", so - for me - Green is both the obligatory launch point, and because he is often so off-beam, he is also the perfect foil. Some interesting and innocent fun can then be had by starting with what Green states to be the case and comparing that to what can be found in primary sources documenting what actually happened. When somebody claimed to be a historian, making these comparisons was once expected to be a normal part of their job description.
In sum, I fully agree that using Green does not constitute serious research (and never has). However, I cannot agree that William Green is "just not relevant anymore for serious researchers." Often there is no other well-recognized source in English that can be used as the baseline for a comparison with the real findings of serious research. (If you are going to take someone on a journey best you start from somewhere that is already familiar to them.) My opinion.

In a separate category, we also have the authors whose books continue to roll off the presses, and yet who still seem to rely implicitly on every single silly thing that Green ever hoovered up and regurgitated. The trouble with (and the joy of) books is that they can be around for a very long time. [Think Gutenberg Bible, except that one was actually proof-read.] In the sub-world of publishing from which the books on our interests come, editors as effective quality-control backstops have generally been conspicuous only by their (almost?) total absence. So the constant question is this, when something silly is published, will the world be better served and better informed if the individuals that have actually delved into the subject simply say nothing? Or is saying nothing actually complicity? You will be able to work out where I stand on this.

Well said. In my youth, my mother noticed my interest in aircraft, especially German aircraft. One day, a neighbor had given her a small hardcover book with the back cover missing. It was for me. I was amazed. The Germans had a rocket plane? And it went on from there.

This interest of ours will only keep going as long as something like this happens. Everyone starts as an amateur. The serious researcher part begins after we'ved lived life a little longer and found ways to help the interest grow.