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

[INM@RLM]

Some interesting material on 10. & 11./ZG 26 caught my eye in 'Ju 88 Day and Night Fighters'. It comes with a small puzzle though.
On p.86 we have the statement: "The first combat loss of the year came on 20 April 1943 when the Ju 88 C-6, W.Nr.360009 - one of the original aircraft transferred to the Staffel in August 1942 from I./NJG 2 - was reported shot down after combat with 'P-51s' 50 km west of the island of Marettimo, west of Sicily."
However, turning back to the previous page, the only identities mentioned in the intercept of 22 August 1942 for the aircraft then being transferred from I./NJG 2 to 10./ZG 26 are: "Ju 88 C-6s, W.Nrs.360007, 360008 and Ju 88 C-4, W.Nr. 249".
Not having any sources that I can readily turn to here, I would be grateful for any light that can be thrown onto clarifying this apparent contradiction.

[INM@RLM]

At a slight tangent to my question above, I can clarify a couple of points relating to the early Ju 88 C sub-types covered in Junkers Ju 88, Vol. 3.

Regardless of what was stated in the signals intercept of 22-Aug-42, the Ju 88 fighter noted here as WNr. 249 can be deduced to have been delivered as a Ju 88 C-2, and not as a C-4. The possibility that a C-2 might have been subsequently converted into a C-4 can also be dismissed as a reasonable possibility for two specific reasons. As highlighted below, the C-4 sub-type with its superfluous mounting for a Rb 50/30 high-altitude recce camera (or a Rb 20/30 or an Ausgleichskamera), was recognized to have been an over-elaborate mis-step. Second, there was actually a Ju 88 Änderungs-Anweisung, Nr. 180 Umbau auf Hilfsfernerkunder, which could be applied "nur auf bes. RLM-Anweisng. durch Halter" (only on special instruction from the RLM to the aircraft holder) to adapt only a Ju 88 C-2 as a long-range recce aircraft. However, effecting this modification did not change the aircraft's sub-type designation.

Turning to the bigger picture, a full series of Ju 88 C delivery figures by month can be found in BA-MA RL 3/2184 [Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe (RdL und ObdL)/GLM/GL. Flugzeugmeldelisten der Industrie (alle Typen)]. This report series covers the whole period Sep-39 to Dec-43, so has unique value.

Compared to the figures reported in RL 3/2184, those that are missing or incomplete in the table on p.14 of Junkers Ju 88, Vol. 3 are:
Aug-40 = 1 (rather than the Nil shown)
Sep-40 = 19 (rather than 18)
Oct-40 = 1 (rather than Nil)
So all the Ju 88 C monthly delivery figures of new aircraft on p.14 up to the end of April 1941 are explicitly corroborated excepting this span of just three months. (It would be very interesting to learn the precise references for the documentary sources(s) used to construct this table.)
In short, the actual total of Ju 88 C-1, C-2 & C-4 conversions performed directly on newly built and delivered Ju 88 airframes was 120, rather than the figure of 117 given in this title.

The overall picture that emerges from RL 3/2184 when combined with RLM Procurement planning of aircraft conversions to be performed by the aircraft industry in this period is:

1. Ju 88 C-1, 20 delivered Feb-40 to Apr-40 (total evidenced in the Umbau sheet for LP 18/1 [actual deliveries to 30-Jun-40 with all C-1 deliveries shown already complete] - all Ju 88 A-1 airframes with WNr. all in the 01xx sequence, the first being reported as WNr. 1022 delivered on 29-Feb-40, however, looking at the other JFM Ju 88 Werk-Nummern in this report series around this time, this was clearly a typo for 0122, subsequently twice reported damaged at Catania, in Mar- and May-42.
2. Ju 88 C-2, 20 delivered Apr-40 to Sep-40 [total evidenced in the Umbau sheets for LP 18/1, LP 18/2 (actual deliveries to end 31-Jul-40 showing just two more C-2 still to be delivered) & LP 18/3 (actual deliveries to end 31-Aug-40 showing just one more C-2 still to be delivered)] - also all Ju 88 A-1 airframes all numbered in the 02xx sequence.
3. Ju 88 C-4, 60 delivered Sep-40 to Apr-41 [total evidenced in the Umbau sheets for LP 19/1 (to end 31-Jan-41) & LP 19/2 (actual deliveries to end 28-Feb-41 showing eighteen more C-4 still to be delivered), with subsequently no mention of the C-4 in LP 19/3, which reported deliveries up to end 30-Apr-41] - all Ju 88 A-5 airframes; these seem to be have been arranged in three separate batches each of 20 and numbered in three distinct Werk-Nummer sequences: 03xx, 05xx/06xx & 07xx (with an interpolated sub-grouping of three C-7 conversions in the 067X series). What is intriguing, however, is that most of the Ju 88 Cs in the 07xx sequence when recorded in the loss and damage reports are actually reported as C-2s rather than as C-4s.
4. Ju 88 C-2, a final 20 not evidenced in any LP [so a last minute decision then, but the RL 3/2184 reports evidence unambiguously that the 27 Ju 88 C delivered in February 1941 comprised 11 x C-4 and 16 x C-2, and the Feb-41 C-Amts-Monatsmeldung notes against the Ju 88 C-4 Umbau deliveries that month "einschl. C2", whilst the Mar-41 LC 2/I F Monatsmeldung (also in BA-MA RL 3/534) actually includes a line for current C-2 deliveries in the month, although the figure reported here is actually that for the previous month in RL 3/2184)] - also all Ju 88 A-5 airframes, all seemingly numbered in the 07xx/08xx sequence.

Together these evidence a total of 120 Ju 88 C-1/-2/-4 conversions ordered, matching exactly with the total of Ju 88 C deliveries reported in RL 3/2184.

In sum then, the evidence clearly indicates that Ju 88 C conversions of new-build aircraft were actually ordered as the sequence: 20 x C-1, 20 x C-2, 60 x C-4, ending with a final 20 x C-2. The aircraft delivery reports in RL 3/2184 also align precisely with this sub-type sequencing. However, from the loss and damage records these Ju 88 C seem to have actually seen service as something closer to: 20 x C-1, 20 x C-2, 43 x C-4, 3 x C-7s, and then 34 x C-2. (In other words, as the need for more long-range night fighters was recognized, all later conversions were completed as the 'preceding', simpler C-2 standard.)
One can only sympathize with those attempting to record these deliveries accurately against a background of continuous change. In the event, the delivery record-keepers seem to have recorded aircraft by the sub-type on the order. Of course though, this could also mean that the later C-4s actually underwent a second conversion step, with the paraphernalia specific to the C-4 being stripped out at a Luftzeugamt for them to re-emerge anew as bona fide C-2s. Indeed this may be the explanation accounting for the significant discrepancies in some of the monthly Ju 88 C figures in the various aircraft delivery and procurement reports across the first four months of 1941.

The single C-3 conversion of Ju 88 A-5, WNr. 0367, was in addition to these 120 aircraft and was created in parallel with the first C-4 block. This airframe was soon converted into the sole C-5, and then subsequently became the first of four C-7s (origins as noted in BA-MA RL 3/948 Baureihenübersicht 1-Nov-42, & the V-Muster sheets of LP 18/3 and LP 19/1). So three different designations were applied sequentially to this same single aircraft at different times.

As regards the deliveries of the BMW 801-powered conversions, there is no mention of that for the C-3 in RL 3/2184, but its delivery as the C-5 is recorded in Jan-41 (also found evidenced in LP 19/1), although you have to turn to BA-MA RL 3/534 to deduce that the first Ju 88 C-7 night fighter was supposedly delivered in Mar-41 (although evidenced in LP 19/2 as delivered the previous month). However, this first C-7 delivery was then ignored in the further planning in LP 19/4 & /5 for three additional C-7s, all of which were diversions of aircraft ordered originally as C-4s and so counted as part of the total of 120 deliveries mentioned above.

[To expand a little on what appears here on the C-7 sub-type at p.21, the C-7s quickly caught the eye of Oberst Rowehl, and at least three of the four were soon modified to become fast strat-recce aircraft, serving most of the time with 4./Aufklärungsgruppe O.b.d.L.1. (in Jan-43 redesignated as Versuchsverband O.b.d.L.) until Jun-43, undergoing periodic engine upgrades during their period of service in the recce role. Smith+Creek+Petrick: On Special Misions pp.20/1 refers, and includes photos.]

It would also be fair to point out that the photo on p.13 captioned as showing the "forward-firing Waffenwanne" (bath) fitted to the underside of the Ju 88 C-5 actually depicts the REARWARD-firing Waffentropfen fairing (teardrop - this term is noted in Griehl: Star p.87) fitted to the C-5 and subsequently the C-7s. (This installation was noted in the Baureihenübersicht section for the C-7 as "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17".)

[Chris Goss]

In answer to INM's first post simple answer-typo and well spotted

[INM@RLM]

Ah, thank you for your #33, Chris. But was what was printed as 360009 actually 360007 or 360008? (Anal, I know.)

[INM@RLM]

OK, please now ignore my #34. Found it now; what was printed as 360009 was actually 360008.

[AndyMa]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

Ah, thank you for your #33, Chris. But was what was printed as 360009 actually 360007 or 360008? (Anal, I know.)

That's not anal at all, it's a desire to know which is correct.
I'm not speaking about this book (which I have but it has not yet reached the top of the reading pile) or indeed this author, but I regularly find large numbers of similar "anomalies". In a similar type-based book (not a Classic title) by another author (which I'm not going to name) I found nearly 30 (eg photo caption says A, text says B; text says C, production list in annex says D, etc etc). The author was quite dismissive when I told him. He had clearly proof-read the actual text (grammar etc), but had clearly not given it to a "numbers-nerd" for cross-checking...

[INM@RLM]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

It would also be fair to point out that the photo on p.13 captioned as showing the "forward-firing Waffenwanne" (bath) fitted to the underside of the Ju 88 C-5 actually depicts the REARWARD-firing Waffentropfen fairing (teardrop - this term is noted in Griehl: Star p.87) fitted to the C-5 and subsequently the C-7s. (This installation was noted in the Baureihenübersicht section for the C-7 as "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17".)

I took another look at this curiosity and realized I should have written this section more tightly, since this rearward-firing installation was in fact only fitted to the C-7 (although the Bordwanne was removed from both the C-5 and the C-7).
In the case of the C-5 that "(ohne Bordwanne)" piece is documented for WNr. 367 in the LP 18/3 V-Muster of 1-Nov-40 in BA-MA RL 3/991. (Frustratingly the earlier JFM V-Muster sheets from LP 18/1 & 18/2 are missing.)

Looking at the Baureihenübersichten for March and November 1942 in RL 3/952 & /948, the C-5 is simply described as a C-4 with BMW 801 engines and "ohne MG FF "M"", with no other indications of difference. So the C-5 is characterized as a Musterflugzeug fitted out as an Erkunder with a fixed forward-firing armament reduced to MG only.
The C-7 here is described as a C-5 with the "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17" and the MG FF restored. The latter I think can only refer to the forward-firing armament.
So what we appear to have in the C-7 is an aircraft fitted for a large strat-recce camera in the rear bomb bay, and primarily for CG and structural reasons, the rearward-firing twin-MG installation in a ventral blister mounted to starboard with its front positioned just under the leading edge of the wing, and having a forward-facing air scoop on its underside. Because the new installation and ammo containers have now blocked off the access from the rear cockpit, the mast for the trailing aerial has been relocated from the port fuselage underside to the forward starboard side of the new ventral armament blister. Or that is what I think I see.
With the full forward-firing armament restored this would have been a very heavy aircraft when used as a fighter. The sparkling performance reported for it one presumes relates only to the airframe with all armament removed and the bug-eye nose restored. Certainly no ventral or forward-firing armament can be discerned in the purported later photos of its use in the recce role.

[Carsten Petersen]

It might be practical to change the picture text on page 60 (bottom) if the book is going to be reprintet. It is not a Ju 88 that is exploding and the airfield is not Stavanger.

The crash takes place at Aalborg West on the 10th of April, 1940. The plane is a He 111 from 8./KG 26, that hits a Ju 52 during start from Aalborg. Uffz Hermes, Uffz Braun, Uffz Hensel and Ogfr Schmittings are killed. We have several pictures from the incident.

[Chris Goss]

Just goes to prove don't believe PK caption!

[INM@RLM]

Turns out also one cannot place unlimited faith in the RLM's Baureihenübersichten, at least not for the non-standard and the one-off specials.

Widening the search, reproduced in Griehl's Ju 88, Star of the Lw. is a JFM works cut-away drawing of the Ju 88 C-5 armament showing the two MG 17s to be forward-firing in a blister mounted on the port underside of the fuselage, the midpoint of the blister aligned with the trailing edge at the wing root. That does match precisely with what is seen in the photo at p.13 except for the air scoop visible in the photo on the blister’s underside.

What this drawing also establishes conclusively is that the C-5 was not a Hilfserkunder. Fitted in both forward and aft bomb bays are extra fuel tanks, with the rear bay also accommodating the ammunition containers for the MG 17s in the blister below, but the drawing shows no rear fuselage camera mount to be present, the position of which further back in the fuselage is clearly shown in the equivalent works drawing for the C-4.

There is also a JFM GA drawing of the C-5 in Becker's book (Schwere Jäger und Zerstörer der Luftwaffe 1939-1945, 1999) at p.70 showing the exact same layout and configuration. With this positioning it would be entirely logical to incorporate the mast for the trailing radio antenna of the FuG 10 into this MG 17 blister.

So this photo does indeed show the forward-firing ventral armament of the Ju 88 C-5 mounted on an airfame without a Bodenwanne, and given the size of the fitting, the term Waffenwanne fits better than the alternative Griehl mentioned of Waffentropfen. The air scoop seen here appears to have a small hole just in front. Conceivably this was actually a suction vent to ensure fumes and sparks were safely vented away from the aircraft through the scoop rather than accumulating within the blister.

In short, the caption on p.13 is accurate, and my 'correction' is an error. So please now scrub my comments on the C-5/C-7 armament/Erkunder points above.

Now clear then is that what should have been stated in the RLM Baureihenübersichten was "Nach hinten Einbau v. 2 MG 17" rather than "Rückwärtseinbau v 2 MG 17", and this should have formed part of the description of the C-5 not just the C-7, although this extra feature was then carried over to the C-7. The statement in the March 1942 Baureihenübersicht that the C-5 was “ohne MG FF” is similarly without foundation and is definitively contradicted by the JFM works drawing. The reference to an additional MG FF in the November 1942 release of this RLM listing is also erroneous.

Every day is still a school day. My apologies to the authors for what turns out to have been a complete mis-direct.