Ju88 shot down Nr Warminster

[Clint Mitchell]

Yes indeed a Ju88A-1 upgraded to Ju88A-5 with the longer wings. The Ju88A-5 was on the scene by this point of the Battle of Britain.

[Clint Mitchell]

RAF crash report states Ju88A-5 also.

[obdl3945]

Hi, Clint...

Thanks for your response. Would I be right in thinking then, that it is the W.Nr. which would be common to both Peter's A-1 details, where Melvin has also confirmed the crew members, and the RAF report classifying the aircraft as an A-5?

This might account for a manufacturer's plate giving the sub-type as an A-1 with a particular W.Nr. when it clearly has the latter version's wings. Of course, RAF personnel at crash sites would presumably be able to tell the difference from previous crashed - and 100% genuine - A-5s by this stage in the Battle. All very intriguing.

Kindest regards,

Paul

[Clint Mitchell]

Hi Paul, I believe that the aircraft retained it's original A-1 data plate when upgraded but also had a new data plate attached also at a different position but with new A-5 details (dates). Keeping same WNr. I suppose it just depends what plate they found first? Clearly its an A-5 but many Ju88's were coming down at this time mostly reported as A-1's whilst the upgrading process for the type was well underway. Not much help in determining which version these actually were unless like here we are very kindly furnished with a photo. My knowledge is limited on this matter perhaps Ed North could confirm?

[obdl3945]

Thanks again, Clint...

I wasn't aware that two plates could be found on one airframe... I've learned something new, so that can only be good... .

Regards,

Paul

[Clint Mitchell]

All I know is that the A-5 (I think WNr 0886146) recovered in Norway had two plates one A-1 plate and one conversion to A-5 plate. Thats what I've been told.

[edNorth]

Hi guys

Wings appear as per A-5 version (inset aileron) but I had just started styding this tread when my name appeared! I stress its not for me to confirm or not!!

All I can say is my opinion. No code or W.Nr. is visible (so is it 3188 L1+XC on that photo or just another hard to indentify Ju 88 downed in Britain, near Warminster or elsewhere?)

I find it a little bit presumptious (hope I write this expression correct, and none is offended by the choise of this word) to "link photo" to exactly this plane because "owner/photographer" was based there during the war. Possibly, but guesswork none the less, in my opinion. I am not doupting rear of photo info, info from photo holder, the RAF report saying A-5 version nor Luftwaffe losses saying A-1 for 3188 L1+XC, nor other historians info on its crew or fates, or other servicemen.

The attached photo simply does not show code or W.Nr.

Regarding A-1 ~ A-5, all three can be correct (original, an factory-upgrade to A-5 or repair/upgrade to A-5 in the field (depot)). Tailplane is certainly per A-1 / A-5 (i.e. fabric covered). The evidence I have is not conclusive either way if 3188 was A-1 or A-5 (at loss date), as production was just changing from A-1 to A-5 at this point in time (July/August 1940) and changover process had already started in June. We certainly know nothing of possible repair or upgrade, unless there is note in files to that effect. I have no note to that against that W.Nr. Lastly, its old known "fact" even A-4´s used A-1 parts or components, so a part dataplate is not conclusive in judging. Hope this helps.

regards
Ed

[Clint Mitchell]

Thanks Ed. Just to note that the photo appears to have all black fuselage codes. This is confirmed on the RAF crash report also. But maybe other downed Ju88 had all black codes?

[edNorth]

Hi Clint. I do not understand your drift. I can not see any codes on the photo, black or otherwise. You are turning things around in saying "This is confirmed on the RAF report also", the RAF report no doupt says black codes on L1+XC, not confirming this one is 3188 - but is this 3188 L1+XC ? The "concrete" tie-up is where? Circumstantial? You understand my saying?

[obdl3945]

Ed, Clint...

I suppose we can only hope that Danny finds his grandgather's other photo, which ideally will have both codes and W.Nr 'writ large'...

Thanks to you both for your comments.

Kindest regards,

Paul