Dornier 17Z vs He-111/ Junkers 88

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
brustcan
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 30 Mar 2004 04:38
Location: canada

Dornier 17Z vs He-111/ Junkers 88

Post by brustcan » 09 Aug 2004 04:30

During the battle of Britain, much has been written about the three main
Luftwaffe bombers in service. The question is which was the better bomber at "THAT TIME." I would say that it was the Do-17Z, since it was popular with the crews, who thought it was strong and reliable, and very stable in flight. Under full power in shallow dive heading back towards the
Channel, it could out run the early Mk's of Spitfires, and Hurricanes. What do you think? Cheers brustcan

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Post by varjag » 10 Aug 2004 11:10

brustcan - I am surprised that your rhetorical question has not already produced a tsunami of divergent opinion. Of the three main bomber-types used by the LW in the BoB you have nominated the oldest design, with the lowest range and bombload as 'the better'...Admittedly, it had a good turn of speed and was reliable. But outmoded - production of the Do-17Z ended about the time of BoB and for good reason - the Ju 88 was by far the better - and the way to go. I've also read in several places that cunning old Claude Dornier was considered a bit of a rip-off merchant in the RLM. His aircraft were expensive enough - but his spare parts were excorbitant! The Do-17's performed sterling service but were overtaken by Junkers's eightyeights.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 10 Aug 2004 17:21

Ju88..........no contest. Better bomb load, better speed, could take more damage.

Tony

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Post by Tim Smith » 18 Aug 2004 12:57

The Do 17Z had only one advantage over the He 111 and Ju 88. That was its radial engines, which could take more damage than the inline engines of the He 111 and Ju 88, since they had no vulnerable radiators. That made the Do 17 more suitable for low-level attacks than the others, since it was better able to withstand small-arms fire from the ground.

But the Dornier's bombload was only half that of the He 111 and Ju 88, and it wasn't very fast either - the Ju 88 was much faster.

The Do 17Z should be regarded as a light bomber, like the British Blenheim - not a medium bomber like the He 111 and Ju 88.

It is described as a light bomber here:

http://www.pilotfriend.com/century-of-f ... t/do17.htm

User avatar
Karwats
Member
Posts: 634
Joined: 11 Nov 2003 12:12
Location: Current DRC, Middle East, Various

Post by Karwats » 18 Aug 2004 21:56

Yup have to agree

Ju 88,better allround. Faster,more range,better bombload.
And a lot more versatile.
Basic 88 was turned into a hell of lot of things not least the excellent G Night Fighter versions.

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 23:28
Location: OR

Post by Erich » 18 Aug 2004 22:08

yes the Ju 88G-6 the best................

E ♪

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Dornier 17Z vs He-111/ Junkers 88

Post by redcoat » 19 Aug 2004 00:30

brustcan wrote:During the battle of Britain, much has been written about the three main
Luftwaffe bombers in service. The question is which was the better bomber at "THAT TIME." I would say that it was the Do-17Z, since it was popular with the crews, who thought it was strong and reliable, and very stable in flight. Under full power in shallow dive heading back towards the
Channel, it could out run the early Mk's of Spitfires, and Hurricanes. What do you think? Cheers brustcan
You actually have a good point, because while the Ju 88 did go on to be one of the best aircraft to serve in WW2, during the BoB the Ju 88 was the least popular of the main bomber aircraft with the luftwaffe.
A combination of how they were used and problems with the early models did cause the Ju 88 to have a high casualty rate and a poor press in the BoB.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Post by Tim Smith » 19 Aug 2004 01:07

Of the three bombers, the Ju 88 was the hardest and most complicated to fly from a pilot's point of view. The He 111 was the easiest - like the B-17, the He 111 was really docile and stable and basically flew itself.

User avatar
Panzergenadier
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 13 Sep 2004 19:42
Location: Bulgaria

Post by Panzergenadier » 14 Sep 2004 18:43

I just want to tell a story:In 1942 two Russian pilots with Hurricanes Mk.²²b met a JU-88A4 flying towards home. One of the fighters has full complect of ammunition, the other may be half of the rounds. The fired all their ammunition and the bomber was still flying. There is nothing i could add except JU-88 - the best German multi-purpose plane in WW2.

Regards,

panzergrenadier

Jurrie
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: 03 Sep 2002 10:54
Location: Holland,The Netherlands

Post by Jurrie » 15 Sep 2004 06:59

Hmz, so why do you all choose the Ju-88 above the He-111?

Jurrie

User avatar
Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re:

Post by Cantankerous » 12 Sep 2023 15:23

Jurrie wrote:
15 Sep 2004 06:59
Hmz, so why do you all choose the Ju-88 above the He-111?

Jurrie
The Ju 88 was designed as a Schnellbomber (fast bomber) and thus did not need defensive armament. How would you rate the stepped cockpit variants of the He 111 against the Ju 88 and Do 17Z in terms of performance?

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”