avatar_Hobbes

Nimrod As A Bomber

Started by Hobbes, November 30, 2007, 01:00:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

RLBH

#15
December 02, 2007, 01:31:34 PM
I understand that a bomb sight was knocked up for the Nimrod for the Falklands, which consisted of lines on a bit of perspex. Apparently, with practice it was possible to get pretty good groups.

MartG

#16
December 03, 2007, 04:55:59 AM
QuoteWell I know the Nimrod was able of carrying "special weapons", but that might have been overkill on Stanley ;)
As the idea was just to cause sufficient damage to prevent its use by Argentinian aircraft, whilst leaving it easily repairable once re-taken, I think you're right that even a WE.177A would have been a bit of overkill.

How about some of the air/fuel bombs the US chucked out the back of Hercules in Vietnam though  :lol:  
Murphy's 1st Law - An object at rest will be in the wrong place
Murphy's 2nd Law - An object in motion will be going in the wrong direction
Murphy's 3rd Law - For every action, there is an equal and opposite malfunction

deathjester

#17
December 03, 2007, 04:06:27 PM
sorry, the idea of Black Buck was to prevent the airfield being used by Super Entard fighter bombers, and heavy transport planes. when an airfield is, even partially 'ripped up' by sub-surface detonations, it is EXTREMELY difficult to repair - it usually keeps subsiding, leaving craters large enough for aircraft to actually fall into... :tornado:  
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions