One weak point was the landing gear. It could have been a bit stronger, not so much a problem in the West (good permanent bases) but in the East there were problems (recon planes and night fighters, Do 217 bomber units operated exclusively in the West)
Ju-88 vs He-111 & Ju-188 vs Do-217
- Thread starter Acheron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
One weak point was the landing gear. It could have been a bit stronger, not so much a problem in the West (good permanent bases) but in the East there were problems (recon planes and night fighters, Do 217 bomber units operated exclusively in the West)
Problem with the 801-powered variants: they never got more than the 801L (~1600 PS) engine and not the higher-powered 801G-2 (~1730PS), probably because the latter recuired C3 fuel and this was prioritized for Fw 190 units.
The high wingloading of the Do217 surely didn't help with one engine cut- or shot-out.
The high wingloading of the Do217 surely didn't help with one engine cut- or shot-out.
- Thread starter
- #64
1 - It was probably so.
2 - As a payload-carrier, the Do 217 was excellent, the only other 2-engined bomber capable to do more was Manchester. Whitley was there with 8000 lbs (earlier available, but with low speed). Early B-26 was initially close with 6000 lbs, and Ju-288 was in the ballpark. All of those 2-engined jobs kinda show why people moved to 4-engined bombers when big payload was considered - those didn't require latest and best engines, and will not suffer that much in an engine-out situation.
G4M & co, Tu-2 and Mosquito were usually faster, but haven't carried a bomb load the Do-217 was carrying. Wellington, Hampden, B-25s and later B-26s were neither carrying that much, nor were fast enough (although the Do 217 carrying more than 3 tons was probably a rare occasion).
Shortround6
Major General
From the chart it appears we are dealing with another good "book" number that would seldom, if ever, be used in practice.
The PC 1000 bombs are armour piercing and are 2,100mm X 500mm and hold 152kg of explosives.
The SC 1000 L bombs (GP ?) are 2,580mm X 654mm and hold 530-590 kg of explosive
The SC 500 bombs came in several models and most went about 2000mm and were 640mm across the fins. body diameter was 470mm and explosive weight was 250-260kg.
The SD bombs were about the same length and somewhat skinner. They held from 75 to 180kg of explosive debending on model
AN SC 250 bomb was 1640mm X 512mm (across the fins) and held 120-130kg of explosive.
The PC 1000 was to be used against concrete bunkers with 2 meters of wall (roof?) thickness, iron bridges, underground installation up to 8 meters below the surface and "lightly armoured warships" this last seems to be a mistake in translation as the bomb is credited with an armor penetration of 100mm armoured steel at an impact angle of 60 degrees, drop height not given. Only modern battleships had deck armor that thick. No cruiser and most old battleships had less deck armor. I am not sure where the "lightly armoured" comes from.
Last edited:
The bomb bay is actually slightly longer than the above illustration. There is a torpedo bay behined the main bomb bay to carry the tail of an LT F5 Torpedo. Internally there was also the LMA 500kg and LMB 1000kg mines. Three could be carried. These were parachute retarded sea mines that detonated 25 seconds after impact on land unless they hit water in which case they armed as a magnetic anti shipping mine. There is some doubt as to whether these were used deliberately against land targets in Britain but as they were dropped on harbours they often hit docks (desirable from the point of view of disrupting shipping) and port cities. The RAF also used adapted sea mines untill they developed specialised bombs like the 4000lb cookie. One load out was:
4 x SC500 plus 4 x SC50 which is a total of 2200kg ie 4900lbs. I have the impression the torpedo bay could carry a small fuel tank but could be wrong. I'm curious about carrying a supplementary 750L tank in the forward bomb bay and a single SC1800 or SC1400 in the rear portion. The Bomb rail from the Do 217E2 onwards was flexible. The Dornier supposedly had an operational range of 3700km/2299m. Ferry range was greater.
Last edited:
the 4x SC 50 in the torpedo tail compartment? i've seen a configuration with 28 SC 50 with 8x3 +2x2 in the most rear portion of bomb bay. SD 1400, there is not a SC 1400, idk if for CoG you can put the lighter load forward. The 217 had relatively few fuel on the permanent tanks, but was flexible with the auxiliary tanks, other the 2 in bomb bay can get 2, of 900 liters, under the wings
By the time the Do 217 makes its appearance in service the principal Allied countries are introducing four engined heavy bombers, which, in terms of bomb load and range, and performance in some cases the Do 217 simply cannot compete with. Nevertheless, it was an impressive aeroplane and as Tomo pointed out it can be compared with the Manchester, but only broadly, as the Manchester was bigger and heavier than the Dornier and could carry a larger load, but performance wise, the Dornier demonstrated better speeds and combat radius with smaller loads.
Compared with another Allied twin engined bomber of similar vintage, say, like the B-25, the differences are less pronounced in terms of size, weights, engine power output, but again, the Dornier has a greater load carrying capacity and is faster with a longer range, but the B-25 is not a heavy bomber and it is better defended with power turrets and has a larger crew. The use of these two aircraft by their respective air forces was quite different, so it is more difficult to draw a meaningful comparison between them.
The employment of the twin engined long range heavy bomber was borne out of necessity and Luftwaffe doctrine - there's a thread about it elsewhere here and as we know the plan was to introduce the He 177 and the result of the Bomber B spec from 1941 onwards, but this all went sideways for various reasons and the Do 217 became the more reliable of Germany's heavy bomber force, since the He 177 was a basket case and took waaay longer than it should have taken to get into service in numbers. The Do 217 was unique - it was a twin engined heavy bomber with a big warload and credible performance and certainly had better reliability than its Heinkel offsider, but would it have gained prominence if the He 177 was more reliable and entered service as was originally intended?
tt33
Airman
Where is this document from?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
