Talk:Bomber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation 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 task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.

This article has comments here.

 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Untitled[edit]

Is it only me or does anyone else take an inference from the following quote from the Bomber page?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world from its base in the center of the United States and back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

While true, there are many other aircraft with the same capability. Suggest the last sentence above be changed to "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range limited only by crew endurance", which comes from the B52 page (with B-2 substituted for B52 of course).Moriori 02:20, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good idea, the original sentence is pretty awkwardly phrased. Stan 03:59, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removal of criticism section[edit]

I removed the following text :-

Criticism - The inaccuracy of modern bombers, including computer guided targetting, has been a source of complaints and accidental deaths. In the Bosnian war (1990s), U.S. bombers accidentally hit a train full of passengers at night. In the same war, U.S. bombers accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy, killing 50 people. In the War on Terror, over 6,000 non-terrorist men, women, and children were accidentally killed by U.S. bombers. This doesn't include the 1,000s who were crippled for life. The U.S. has the most advanced targetting equipment in the world, and yet it is mistake prone. It leads critics to remark: "If you can't bomb right, you shouldn't bomb at all."

This (potentially) belongs in an article on bombing, rules of engagement or military tactics but not in an article about a type of military aircraft Djbrianuk 18:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OtherUses template[edit]

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}}

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talkcontribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Warload??[edit]

I find this in the fourth paragraph of the History section:

In the past, bombers were a separate type of aircraft, and often looked dramatically different from other aircraft. This was due largely to the lack of power in aircraft engines, meaning that to carry any reasonable warload, the aircraft had to have multiple engines. The result was a much larger aircraft, one with a reasonable useful load fraction for the role.

What is a warload? Please reference a reputable dictionary.

Best Regards,

Jeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.3.11.2 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

  • "Payload" is a better term - changed. 91.108.222.225 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

O.T.U.: what does that mean exactly?[edit]

Hi,

in my research about bombings in World War II there is often to find the indication "O.T.U." or OTU. But there is no article about OTU, and the reports of other websites never explain this term,

e.g. here: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/bombercommand/1942.aspx

or here: http://www.raf-lichfield.co.uk/OTUindex.htm

It would be good when an article about OTU would exist for "foreigners of English"...

Michael Palomino -- 84.74.56.25 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_training_unit AThousandYoung (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

B-2 Spirit[edit]

I see from comments above that there used to be B-2 information here, but it's not here now. I think stealth bombers should be discussed. In addition, it would be nice to see differentiation between high altitude bombers and interdiction bombers like the F-111. AThousandYoung (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph needs fixing but fairy cant be bothered. Somebody fix. 203.89.165.100 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Although actual first bombardment was in 1911, the US tested the concept in 1910.[edit]

I read this in a BBC report, near the bottom it states that the US tested the concept of aerial bombing in 1910 using sandbags as dummy bombs. However, I noticed the source is from www.century-of-flight.net, and I don't know if this is a reliable enough source; maybe a book containing the same information would be a more preferable/acceptable reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eug.galeotti (talkcontribs) 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)