In an earlier thread Tomo Pauk suggested;
"The Do-17 adapted for down dirty attacks could be a more viable idea. It used non-strategic engines*, (*and not the troublesome G&R ones ) the twin layout allowed for wide assortment of cannon armament, and the dorsal turret featuring MG-151 would provide a nice punch. Of course, a crew of two in an armored crew department is a must. Some under-wing rockets would make it a good all-round ground attack plane."
I've been thinking about this for a while and it seems a pretty good idea.
- Engine option 1; As with most Do-17s use the Fafnir 323 such as the 1200 HP with MW50 R-2 version.
- Engine option 2: Use captured French Gnome Rhone 14N engines, up to 1165 HP in later versions.
- As suggested crew of two (pilot and rear observer/gunner) in an armored crew compartment.
- I would suggest the earlier Do 17 E/F/M/P nose contour but with a smooth metal nose cap in place of the bomb aiming glazing.
- Two 20mm MG151/20 cannon in the nose in front of the pilot.
- Main armament would be a single BK 3.7 cannon positioned with the breach / magazine in the rear of the crew compartment, allowing the
rear gunner to feed in additional 6 round clips. BK 3.7 could be replaced later in the war with a BK 5 cannon as tanks get thicker armor.
- I feel that a turret would be too much weight for the protection. I suggest staying with a free swing machines gun set-up for rear defense
as in the historic Do 17 M/P but upgrade to dual belt fed MG 81 (aka MG81Z) in place of the historic single drum fed MG15.
- Bomb bay retained for hollow charge or anti-personnel cluster bombs.
- Remove or clip about 60 cm (24") off each wing tip, cutting the span, area, and drag.
What is your opinion? Good idea or bad?? Alternate ideas??
Piper106
"The Do-17 adapted for down dirty attacks could be a more viable idea. It used non-strategic engines*, (*and not the troublesome G&R ones ) the twin layout allowed for wide assortment of cannon armament, and the dorsal turret featuring MG-151 would provide a nice punch. Of course, a crew of two in an armored crew department is a must. Some under-wing rockets would make it a good all-round ground attack plane."
I've been thinking about this for a while and it seems a pretty good idea.
- Engine option 1; As with most Do-17s use the Fafnir 323 such as the 1200 HP with MW50 R-2 version.
- Engine option 2: Use captured French Gnome Rhone 14N engines, up to 1165 HP in later versions.
- As suggested crew of two (pilot and rear observer/gunner) in an armored crew compartment.
- I would suggest the earlier Do 17 E/F/M/P nose contour but with a smooth metal nose cap in place of the bomb aiming glazing.
- Two 20mm MG151/20 cannon in the nose in front of the pilot.
- Main armament would be a single BK 3.7 cannon positioned with the breach / magazine in the rear of the crew compartment, allowing the
rear gunner to feed in additional 6 round clips. BK 3.7 could be replaced later in the war with a BK 5 cannon as tanks get thicker armor.
- I feel that a turret would be too much weight for the protection. I suggest staying with a free swing machines gun set-up for rear defense
as in the historic Do 17 M/P but upgrade to dual belt fed MG 81 (aka MG81Z) in place of the historic single drum fed MG15.
- Bomb bay retained for hollow charge or anti-personnel cluster bombs.
- Remove or clip about 60 cm (24") off each wing tip, cutting the span, area, and drag.
What is your opinion? Good idea or bad?? Alternate ideas??
Piper106
Last edited: