What could have been built instead of the He177?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

How can that be possible when V24 was funded two years ahead of bomber B program?

I think V24 was funded as a bomber engine but without a specific airframe in mind. If V24 got a prototype running then RLM would fund a suitable bomber airframe.

April 1939. Jumo 222 engine prototype first run.
July 1939. Bomber B program funded.
 
The Do-217 was NOT a heavy bomber. Some people may call it one.

B-25D, 610 sq ft of wing, 20,300lbs empty and a pair of 1700hp engines for take off.
Do-217E-2, 614 sq ft of wing, 19,522lbs empty and a pair of 1580hp engines.

But there were few Air Forces where it would have been classified as one.
 
vikingBerserker said:
It's not the number of engines that determines if it's a heavy bomber or not. Per Merriam Webster: "a large long-range bomber designed primarily to carry large and heavy bomb loads to distant strategic targets".
Click to expand...
Which technologically eliminates twin engine bombers of the era. The Do217 was only about able carry 2,500kg the same distance the He111 carried a 2,000kg load. It could theoretically carry 4,000kg with internal and external payload much shorter distances. Long range enabled only small loads and its 'long' range was less than the He177 or Ju290. In effect a heavy bomber for WW2 was a four engine bomber that could travel ~2000 miles with over 3,000kg of bombs, which nothing with two engines could achieve in this period.

It was just developed on its own and got attached to the Bomber B program when the concept of the V24 became viable.
 

Per Hitler's Luftwaffe by Wood/Gunston (page 149) the Do 217 could carry a full bomb load of 8,818lbs/4000kg for 1,300 miles/2,100km. The He 111 (page 180) could carry the same bomb load but for only 745 miles/1,200km. This was confirmed in Warplanes of the Third Reich by Green which lists the Do 217M-1 as a "Four-seat Heavy Night Bomber" (page 152).

wiking85 said:
In effect a heavy bomber for WW2 was a four engine bomber that could travel ~2000 miles with over 3,000kg of bombs, which nothing with two engines could achieve in this period..
Click to expand...

This comment interests me as I'm not 100% sure of the specific definition myself. Where exactly did you get this from? If this is correct then based on the information at the NMUSAF site, the B-17 models A-E would not qualify as a heavy bomber as well as the Handley Page Halifax.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/search/generalsearch.asp?q=B-17&site=Museum&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0
 

The Do 217 was very similar in wing area, weight and power to a B-25. It had less wing area, was lighter and had similar power to a Hercules powered Wellington. If it was "heavy" bomber it was a light "heavy bomber.

Both the Wellington and Whitley were originally described as heavy bombers, when newer larger planes came along they were down graded to medium. The Do 217 didn't show up in any real numbers (dozens) until the summer of 1941 at which time the British had one or more squadrons of Manchesters, Sterlings, and Halifaxes in service.

And going by Warplanes of the Third Reich by Green (page 152) the 217M (with DB 603 engines) max range on internal fuel was 1355miles bomb load unspecified, however only 5550lbs out of the 8818lbs could be carried internal. (according to Green). We hit a real wall when we come to the weights; 19,985lbs empty, 24,140lbs empty equipped ( with guns, radios, oxygen equipment bomb sights etc but without ammo) and 36,817lbs max overload for a payload (bombs, ammo crew, fuel oil) of 12,677lbs. If you hang 8818lbs of bombs on the plane you have 3859lbs of payload left and the DO 217 could hold 651 imp gallons of fuel in 5 internal tanks ( one 35 gallon out board of each engine, one 175 gall on inboard of each engine and a 231 gal fuselage tank above the bomb bay, not in it.) that is 4687 lbs of fuel 828lbs passed max over load and you have no crew (800lbs) no engine oil (44 imp gallons or more per engine) and no ammo for the defensive guns. Something has to give, either bomb load for 1355 miles was a lot less than 8818lbs or the range for 8818lbs was a lot less than 1355 miles. ( and even increasing the max overload weight by 2000lbs leaves you 400lbs short with no ammo.




The definition may change with time. What was a "heavy" bomber in 1940-41 with 1200hp engines (twin or four) was NOT a heavy bomber in 1943-44 when 1500-1750 engines were much more common. (American Turbo-Charged 1200hp take-off engines made as much power at 20-25,000ft as non turbo 1500+ hp take-off engines did)
 
Last edited:
From the E-2 on the Do 217 could carry 3 tonnes of bombs and 2900l (2.2 tonnes) of fuel internal for a weight of ~16.6 tonnes (in the E-2). I have seen some authors classify the 217 as heavy medium bomber rather than light heavy.
 
Having more aircraft couldn't hurt, especially given the numbers that were down due to lack of spare parts historically or lacked replacements for combat and non-combat damage. Plus being able to phase out the Bf110 quicker from 1943-44 with more Ju 88s licensed produced by Heinkel would have been helpful, even if adapted to the DB601/5 engines.[/QUOTE]

As other posters have noted, there were many things that were needed. And it would have been wiser to avoid getting into a military situation where time was not on their side.

That being said, I have several several additional suggestions:

1. Reliable long range aircraft were needed for maritime operations. There were far too few Fw 200s and, being an improvisation based on a pre-war airliner design, these were far from ideal. Perhaps development and operational deployment of the Ju 290 could have been accelerated. Conceivably, an interim version could have been developed with Jumo 211 engines.

2. Modern transport aircraft such as the DC-3 and Ju 252 were needed to support operations in various theaters. The Ju 52 was short legged, slow and had limited load carrying capacity. The need to divert He 111s and training units to transport operations had both short and long term effects on the offensive/defensive capabilities of the Luftwaffe.

3. The effectiveness of the Regia Aeronautica could have been substantially improved, at least in the early years, if additional DB 601/605 engines had been provided for installation in Italian fighters.
 
Denniss said:
From the E-2 on the Do 217 could carry 3 tonnes of bombs and 2900l (2.2 tonnes) of fuel internal for a weight of ~16.6 tonnes (in the E-2). I have seen some authors classify the 217 as heavy medium bomber rather than light heavy.
Click to expand...

AFAIK that was only in one specific configuration (IIRC two 1500kg SD bomb) that the Do217 could take 3k kg internally; the usual was 2-2.5k kg.
 
Too much is often made of theoretical capabilities or combining max bomb loads with Max ranges that never happened. The B-17 could fit 9600lbs worth of bombs in the bomb bay but only by using the almost worthless ( for general bombardment duties) 1600AP bombs. add a pair of 4000lbs bombs on external racks and the B-17 had a most impressive bomb load on paper. They could carry ten 500lb GP bombs or six 1000lb GP bombs to many targets in Europe however. Same with some of the German bombers, The max loads were only achieved by using odd ball loading's of rather scarce special purpose bombs and/or hanging large bombs outside the aircraft with significant impact on speed and range.

The Do 217 could carry eight 551lb, four 1100 or two 2205lb bombs inside and that is actually pretty good for a twin engine bomber of 3200-3500hp but really isn't in the heavy bomber class, especially considering the ranges involved.
 
Luftwaffe use of large bombs wasn't very common. I don't know if it is due to the lack of large bombers or lack of supply or the fact that large bombs were of little use in Russia, bombs of over 250kg being of little use for tactical bombing. Monthly average of 1000kg bombs was roughly a little more than 10% of the monthly average for 500kg bombs and the average of 500kg bombs was roughly 1/4 to 1/6 the number of 500kg bombs depending on year. The average for bombs over 1000kg was around 120 per month.
 
That's fine for soft targets such as artillery positions. However there are occasions when only 1,000kg will do. Otherwise large bridges and major fortress complexes such as Metz cannot be cracked by air power.
 
davebender said:
That's fine for soft targets such as artillery positions. However there are occasions when only 1,000kg will do. Otherwise large bridges and major fortress complexes such as Metz cannot be cracked by air power.
Click to expand...

IIRC didn't the allies find even 500lb bombs were okay at destroying factory rooves and walls but it really needed 1000lbs to damage the machine tools in the factories. The Germans just kept working with no roof and a wall missing.
 
Yes but you don't run into a Metz every day or even every month.
The point is that many of the "max" loads for both allied and axis planes were seldom used and certainly not at the ranges that many web sites/books imply.

The Germans used the fact that they did not load down their "medium" bombers with the weight of defensive guns and gunners that the Americans did to enable them to carry a higher bomb load when needed over short ranges. It did not turn them into heavy bombers.
 
beitou said:
IIRC didn't the allies find even 500lb bombs were okay at destroying factory rooves and walls but it really needed 1000lbs to damage the machine tools in the factories. The Germans just kept working with no roof and a wall missing.
Click to expand...

The Germans noted that the 1000kg bombs were only necessary against industrial installations and since a good number of them had been pulled back to the Urals there really weren't that many targets for the bigger bombs that the Germans could reach in Russia.

It doesn't do a whole lot of good most of the time to be say you can haul a 3000kg load if the targets dictate that the load used a dozen times more often is really 2000kg. ( American listings can be just as bad, the 1600lb AP bomb is WAY over listed in relation to how much it was actually used)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
Why did the US ww2 fighters have 50 cals instead of 20mms like their european cousins
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register