Two Ju 88G-1 Losses

[Rabe Anton]

Dear Readers:

Do any of you have any information on the loss of Ju 88G-1 WNr. 714 910, repeat, 7-1-4-9-1-0? Have as yet only briefest of references in ULTRA (85 per. dam., Rheine, 02.12.44, I./NJG 4).

Not entered in Balss nor Schwerzer, which seems just a bit odd, although we know that both of these publications are incomplete.

Same question and same source for Ju 88G-1 714 232 repeat 7-1-4-2-3-2 stated to have been lost on 06.12.44 (no location recorded). 12./NJG 3. Her Tr.KZ is given as D 5 + D 8 [sic].

With many thanks,
RA

[Merlin]

No further information for WNr. 714 910.

WNr. 714 232 was not lost, it was modified into a Mistel 2 at Junkers Leipzig and was test flown there on 31.01.45 (Flugbuch Erich Krauße).

[Rabe Anton]

Grüß Gott Merlin et al!

Thank you very much for taking time to post information about Ju 88G-1 WNr. 714 232. Unfortunately, it seems to me that it doesn't seem to help too much; indeed, the confusion and uncertainty may be amplified. Let's see why.

I have the Erich Krause FB, found the 31.01.45 entry, and employed it in my initial investigation. The Krause entry in part reads:
31.01.45 [Ju 88G-1] WNr. 714 332 [sic] S Y + V V

Now, my data show that S Y + V V quite surely belonged to Ju 88G-1 WNr. 714 232. So, I conclude that in considering the Krause FB entry, you preferred to
favor the SKZ over the Werknummer 714 332 recorded in the log book.

If we believe the ULTRA message is correct, the 714 232 a.k.a. S Y + V V would have been lost (as reported) on 06.10.44. This interpretation would
make the Krause FB Werknummer entry of 31.01.45 (714 332) credible while simultaneously discrediting the SKZ (S Y + V V).

Clearly, something is amiss in the Krause FB entry, and that wrinkle is possibly linked to the Ju 88 loss of 06.10.44. Of course, I confess it's always possible that the Werknummer reported for the October loss is wrong. But what's the real deal here?

AND—I'd still like to discover an unmutilated Truppenkennzeichen for the aircraft lost on 06.10.44, if that's possible today.

RA

[Merlin]

Concerning the Krauße entry for 31.01.45: it's much easier to mistype one number in the production number than to write a complete wrong registration.

On the other hand for Ju 88G-1 there are no numbers between 714295 an 714351 from other sources. Therefore his entry for WNr. 714332 must contain an error.

[edNorth]

712332 did belong to III/NJG 3 in summer 44 (that contained 8th Staffel).
(CX/MSS/R.243/A/12.)

D5+D 8 (D5+DS) then to 12. staffeln - Just speculating here.

-Ed

[RodM]

Hi Rabe,

The one 1945 ULTRA mention of 714232 is in HW 5/644 R.424/A/16, which simply notes that a Ju88G-1 with this W.Nr. was at Varel on or about 8/1/45.

There is no mention of 714910 in 1945 ULTRA, so, given the extensive number of daily strength returns for NJG4 that were intercepted and decrypted, I would presume that it was struck off strength with NJG4 in December 1944.

Cheers

Rod

[Peter Achs]

Ju 88 714232 was later used as Mistel, confirmed by FB's Schreiber (as SJ+VV) and Brandenburg. 07.02. and 08.02.45 at Nordhausen one adjusting and one acceptance flight. Was "RW 68".

Peter

[Rabe Anton]

Merlin, Peter, Ed, Rod, et al,

Thank you all so very much for participating in trying to identify a Ju 88G-1 of 12./NJG 3 that was lost on 06.10.44.

Breaking our situation down in Cartesian fashion, let me first say to Merlin that your favoritism for S Y + V V plus other comments have persuaded
me that your position is correct. At the beginning of my investigation, I ran straight into muddled and confusing information involving at least two aircraft; in trying to reconcile the recorded facts, I chose the Werknummer instead of the SKZ. As you say, much more probable that the letters would be correct, and Peter, I believe, has verified this with later reporting of one airplane.

The identification of the loss on 06.10.44 remains for me unsatisfactory. Just this morning, however, I have found a second reporting of this loss
in a different ULTRA message. This second signal repeats the facts transmitted earlier, but gives a fragmented WNr. 71232.

Again, thank all of you for sharing your insights and data. If anyone has additional information or thoughts, please share them.

RA

[edNorth]

I do see conflict for SY+VV versus SJ+VV but I have no opinion.

[RT]

SY+VV is the right one, Krause hv it one Jan.45, to say that Krause, need to return school writing is 2/10 !

Rémi