JU 88 4D+DR 15 August 1940

[rstrickl]

I have a question concerning one of the JU 88s downed on 15 August during the raid on Driffield. I have seen a photograph of 4D+DR and I know that it is an A model but I am unsure as to whether it is an A-1 or A-5. I hope that someone out there can help out with this.

Thank You,

Richard Strickland

[obdl3945]

Hi, Richard...

I don't know what you can see on the source material you've been looking at, but generally speaking, the A-1 and A-5 were very similar externally. You can determine an A-1 because it has the shorter, original length wings, where the aileron forms part of the contour of the wingtip. On the A-5, the wings were similar to the later A-4, in that the ailerons were inset into the wing, and the entire wingtip was exactly that... a wingtip, and did not have any of its contour formed by the aileron.

Hopefully these thumbnails will help you identify the two sub-versions... A-1 on the left, from www.warbirdphotographs.com, and the other an old, long-past e-bay auction, I believe.

Regards,

Paul

[edNorth]

Richard, I know the plane in question. Picures of 4D+DR have been around for a long time (even the old Ju 88 A Profile has one). So far even I can not say for sure, as the published photos indeed do not show conclusive details.

Also I have not yet seen any proof it was one of those planes! The reasoning is also this: If it was so lightly damaged or complete, yet no mention is known of it in any evaluation or intelligance report. I whould like very much to know if there is one existing. But generally (mid August 1940), very few of the Ju 88 A-5´s had been delivered so more likely it was A-1.

[rstrickl]

Hi Paul,
Thank you for the reply and the excellent photographs. Unfortunately, the photograph I am referencing shows the fuselage and the port inner wing but the wingtips are not visible. Thanks again for your assistance.

Best regards,

Richard

[rstrickl]

Hi edNorth,
Thank you for the reply. You certainly raised some interesting questions concerning the aircraft in the photograph. Thanks again!

Best regards,

Richard

[Peter Cornwell]

Richard,

None of my photos of this incident resolve your question but the RAF Intelligence Officer who inspected the machine recorded its type thus: 'Ju88 Siebel Flugzeugwerke Halle K.G. Flgz. Muster Ju88A-1'. I assume that he took these details from a serial plate on the aircraft but they did not find their way into the relevant A.I.1.(k) Report which is No.267(11)/1940.

[edNorth]

Richard, are you aware that 4D+DR is not thought to have reached its objective, but 4D+KL did (see more below).

But ok. From the same reference as stated by Peter Cornwell (i.e. A.I.1.(k) No. 267/1940 - "List No.11" - but I was/am missing "the title page" and possibly more pages, and therefore did´t realize I indeed had same info against that one. My sorry). Also I have noted four crew names against 4D+DR (but unshure if they are against the correct loss - they should have been only three or four.)

But, no there is no mention of "Siebel" in that list... but most parts, despite finished as A-5, actually were the same as A-1 had. We just do not know what plate this info comes from. "Parts travel" between aircraft´s was considerable in the field and at repair stations as the war progressed.

I have the Luftwaffe GQM losses for this fateful day for I and III/KG 30 here in front of me. There is indeed one Ju 88 A-5 listed missing (100%) that day but against 3./KG 30 and "Flamborough Head" (four crew), against no less than two of I/KG 30 and three of III/KG 30 missing, two more crashlanding on landing (total seven): all last ones given as "Ju 88 C"´s (of which two are to be given the number of crew to reported of later, but three of the missing "C"´s are indeed noted with three crew each (which is correct for a Ju 88 C Zerstörer), all were mostly aimed at Driffield. Furthermore one more Ju 88 (no subtype listed) is mentioned lost 15.08.40 - of 4./KG 30 (II Gruppen) two crew dead, two missing.

But the singular Ju 88 A-5 is listed against 3./KG 30 (and four man crew) and therefore 4D+KL seems to fit the bill best but there were two more "C" from I/KG 30 lost also. So against this list (below) 4D+DR should possibly had been a "Ju 88 C" (but 4D+DR indeed it seems to be Ju 88 A model - with normally had four man crew).

The A.I.1.(k) No.267/1940 listings have only three investigated:

11. "Ju 88 4D+DR" as "Nr. Hornby"
12. "Ju.88 4D+KL" as "Nr. Bridlington",
13. "Ju 88 4D+-M" as "Nr. Hunmanby"

But there is likely more info I do not have, I do not have all I whished having. The A.I.1(k) No. 267/1940 does not offer conclusive info. But for what I see the photos often stated as of 4D+DR could well as be 4D+DP (II Gruppen) as that last letter is not entierly clear...

ed

[edNorth]

Well, sorry gentlemen, even I make mistakes. It transpires that likely all these "Ju 88 C" imentioned in Post #7 abowe had four man crews (per amendments in RL 2 III/1174 P.48 <Report 19.08.40, bottom, Lfd. 17 a,b,c,d,e.>) "Scribbling" and subsequent overstiking of numbers in each crew in first report leading to this "Gross error" and thus the entries concerning most if not all of KG 30 on 15.08.40 were wrongly read by me from the Microfice. So these were then not "Zerstörers". Sorry. The "C" likely standing for "Rústgrad C" (long-range fuel-tanks in both fuselage bays, bombs then only carried on external racks). Now I go for a freshing evening walk!

[rstrickl]

Mr. Cornwell and Mr. North-
Thank you for your assistance. I do appreciate your offering your time and your expertise in helping with my question. Thanks again.

Best regards,

Richard Strickland

[Chris Goss]

An account from one of the crew of 4D+DR (which I have as Wk Nr 5648/Ju 88 A-4 but I am sure Ed will correct me!) is in my book 'The Luftwaffe Bombers Battle of Britain'