"German Tornado Ordinance" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article With clean lines and not a lot of clutter, Minidragon  says these figures are a painter's dream!
Featured Profile Article Part II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
| Razor78 | 18 Apr 2017 3:51 p.m. PST |
What type of ordinance would the German Tornados have carried during the 1980s?
Mostly looking for air to ground. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 18 Apr 2017 4:46 p.m. PST |
Luftwaffe aircraft are armed with US-supplied B61 nuclear bombs, plus the MW-1 bomblet-dispensing system, AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-88 HARM. Self-defence is provided by Bofors BOZ-101 ECM pods, AIM-9Ls and Telefunken Systemtechnik Cerebrus II, III or IV jamming pods. Under development is the Franco-German APACHE stand-off missile, intented for Eurofighter and the Tornado. Flight tests commenced in April 1994. APACHE could be offered to the RAF for SR(A) 1236. The Luftwaffe is also seeking to add further PGM capability to the Tornado. Naval weapons are the MBB Kormoran anti-ship missile, backed by AGM-88 and the BL755 cluster-bomb, plus SFC 28-300 'buddy' pods. While all German aircraft are AGM-88 capable, only the Luftwaffe's ECR version would use it on an 'offensive' role. Marineflieger aircraft, in contrast, train with HARM as one of their main anti-shipping weapons. Excerpted from here: link |
| Mako11 | 18 Apr 2017 5:27 p.m. PST |
Anti-runway, cluster bomb canisters, for airfield denial, dropped via very low level passes. |
| David Manley | 18 Apr 2017 10:16 p.m. PST |
A weapon type that quickly disappeared after GW1 when it was realised (a) they werent that effective and (b) it was a quick and simple way to lose your own aircraft |
| Lion in the Stars | 19 Apr 2017 3:54 a.m. PST |
Yeah, the big anti-runway bomblet dispensers proved to be AAA-bait, the attack path was highly predictable. You really want something like the French Durandal anti-runway bomb to shut down an airport long-term. But a couple Rockeye cluster bombs (or equivalent) would make a mess out of a Russian armor battalion if they got caught in their forming-up areas. |
| David Manley | 19 Apr 2017 4:44 a.m. PST |
Even Durandal proved to be something of a damp squib. Turns out runways aren't actually that vulnerable if you have a half decent construction crew on hand and fire engines to wash the anti personnel mines off the tarmac |
| MajorB | 19 Apr 2017 11:30 a.m. PST |
I have no idea what type of laws would have applied to such aircraft at that time. |
| Gennorm | 19 Apr 2017 12:14 p.m. PST |
I have no idea what type of laws would have applied to such aircraft at that time In WW3, only the laws of physics! |
| Lion in the Stars | 19 Apr 2017 11:45 p.m. PST |
? Oh, spelling. Ordinance is legal-beagle stuff, ordnance (no I) is what hangs under a plane. @David: I thought that Durandal was supposed to displace the big concrete slabs in addition to making a big crater, which was the only way to shut down a runway for any length of time. A big crater alone just gets filled in with the rubble. |
|
