Talk:Bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

Take a look at the picture text. It says "ordinance" - not ordnance, which is the correct word.--JRed July 7, 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Does anyone know who so very rudely put the farting comment in the first sentence? I edited it out. Secos5 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Correction: IP address 67.189.164.148 was responsible. Secos5 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Stylized graphic 2 Bomb guidance 3 History 4 Pronunciation? 5 Attentat? 6 Concrete bomb 7 Watch for Vandalism 8 Concrete Bomb Response 9 Origin of cartoon bombs

[edit] Stylized graphic

What is the origin of the familiar stylized graphic of a black ball with a wick? [1], for example. — Omegatron 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what the first hand grenades were. Kafziel 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bomb guidance

There should be a section (at least) on the guidance of dropped bombs and especially modern methods, e.g. laser-guided or "smart" bombs. There are even better targeting methods available today.

Sorry, missed link to Precision-guided munition... -Wfaxon 08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried outfitting artillery shells with advanced bomb-like guidance, with targeting done by spotter planes? Without ordnance the planes can stick around longer and artillery shells are supposedly faster even than missles. -Wfaxon 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that artillery shells quite qualify as bombs, but to answer your question there are smart artillary shells. It is called Excaliber and they are used by the United States military. They cost nearly one million dollars a piece but are extremely accurate and useful when air support is not availible. If you wish to learn more here is a link.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk)

[edit] History

Can someone please add a history section?

Can someone please add a history section that's not anti-Japanese propaganda? Japanese air attacks against Chongquing are repeatedly condemned as atrocities and mass murder when they caused something like half the number of casualties over -four years- as the RAF inflicted (conservatively) in two days over Dresden. More people in Chongquing probably died from traffic accidents. Kensai Max 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "bombing" section, on reflection, doesn't belong in an encyclopedic page about the explosive devices themselves, especially given that it largely deals with strategic bombardment from the air and not other uses of explosives in warfare for... just about everything. A link to Strategic Bombing would be more appropriate. I'm deleting the section and adding the link under "see also". Kensai Max 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

The pronunciation of the word was added which is harmless and completely intelligible, and was considered vandalism. Is pronunciation considered vandalism?

---

Hey there. I reverted the post in question for a few different reasons:

1. There was no edit summary, and at a quick glance appears to be jibberish.
2. It was not written in a standard pronunciation form, but in IPA phoenetics (which is less commonly used these days).
3. I did not believe that a phoenetical pronunciation was needed for a simple, common four letter word.
4. The author that added the phoenetics to the article had four previous warnings issued by other editors and bots, therefore by common sense, the user's change appeared to be nonsense also.

Chrisch 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attentat?

I was wondering why Attentat redirects here but hten is not referred to? An Attentat does not have to involve a bomb, so although it might involve a bomb, the link is a little tenuous. If someone knows the resaon for the original redirection can they explain? Thanks

Andrew Riddles 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete bomb

Perhaps someone could have a look at the following new addition, which I just removed from the article. Spelling and redlinking aside, I'm not sure what the point of the text is. -- Ec5618 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A concrete bomb is a bomb without any explosives. They are besicly chunks of concrete weighing 227, 454 or 908 kg (500, 1000 or 2000 pounds). The advantage is that they theoreticly can knock out a target without an explotion, without chrapnel and with less collateral damage.[2]

[edit] Watch for Vandalism

I just changed a section of vandalism, we should be watching this article more often. Alec92 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Bomb Response

Yeap, what the person was trying to explain is almost correct. The Air Force is using BDU-50 (Mk 82 Intert Bomb, 500#) and BDU-56 (Mk 84 Intert Bomb, 2000#) to take out targets with no coladderal damage. The Bombs are forged steel bombs filled with Concrete instead of explosives. There is no Mk 83 (1000#) version of the inert bomb (concrete bomb). 76.184.182.223 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of cartoon bombs

What's the origin of those cartoon bombs. Those black balls with a fuse coming out of them? I heard they were based on old Spanish grenades. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)