Jump to content

Talk:Butterfly Bomb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 08:53, 12 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]

"explosive thick-walled 2 kg" is not a correct translation. thick walled would be "dickwändig" in german.

but Dickenwald is a part of the city of Saarwellingen and would translate into "fat forest"

(if the part of Saarwellingen is meant, i do not know, perhaps someone would look after it) Elvis 11:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats not correct. "dickwändig" is not a valid german word. "dickwandig" = "thick-walled" was ok. The second thing ist, that a cluster bomb is not a "splitterbombe". The common german word for cluster bomb is "streubombe". (User:84.185.161.164)
you are correct, "dickwandig" would be better german.
it was used as a cluster bomb, but the bomblet itself was a splitterbombe. the clusterbomb itself is not talked about here, only the bomblet itself. Elvis 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my surpise I found that the term 'fuze' seems to be correct although the dictionary suggests the spelling 'fuse'. I suggest either an indication to the correctness of the spelling or another linked wikipedia entry for the first occurence of 'fuze' in this text. Also one might argue that the proper term for 'removing a fuze' was 'defuze' rather than 'defuse'. But maybe all that's just due to a lack of intelligence (pun intended) in the military?

First use

[edit]

The article says a unexploded butterfly bomb was recovered in 1940, but then says that they were first used in 1942 against Grimsby and Cleethorpes. An earlier version says they were first used in 1940 against Ipswich, from the tone of the original changes to 1942 ([1], and [2]) I think this may be some vandalism that was partially repaired and partially unrepaired. Are there any experts who know the definitive answer? Perhaps the raid on Grimsby and Cleethorps was the first time large numbers of them were used.--HarryHenryGebel 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Read all about it :--- http://civildefence-suffolk.webeden.co.uk/#/ipswich-raid-no-10/4579245618 81.86.125.95 (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Louis Musgrove[reply]

Anti-materiel use

[edit]

I don't have time to dig out the book to find the exact details, but these were also used during the German invasion of the USSR against airfields. When I have more time, I may add this to the article. Plumbob78 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

british centrific

[edit]

Use in retaliatory nuisance raids against UK towns was a side show and the Luftwaffe couldn't have cared less about lack of british reports. The main field of employment of SD-2s was the east Front, where it was used massively. SD-2s were first used by simply dropping them from normal bomb bays during the 1941 invasion of the soviet union. While they were devastating to troop concentrations and parked aircraft, serveral bombers were lost because of tumbling bombs colliding immidiately after drop. This led to severe restrictions on use until a clamshell cluster bomb could be developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRitter (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Claims

[edit]

This article claims that the SD2 was specifically aimed at farmers, but the only source for this I could find was the book UXB Malta, a fairly unreliable source. The author is a folklorist, more interested in telling an interesting story rather than finding out a thoroughly researched fact. The fact that she refers to the North Africa Campaign as the Middle East says a lot about her expertise.

These are my reasons for disbelieving this claim:

  • the SD2 with 70 fuze is a cluster bomb mine, mines are meant to be area denial weapons. Since the main German strategy in the siege of Malta was to starve the defenders out, mining their fields was the most effective manner to achieve this in concert with the attacks on Malta Convoys. The second link I provide below is an actual German instruction manual for the SD2 that outlines this.
  • The source says they were targeted at farmers, but whoever added it to the article misinterpreted this to mean they intended to kill farmers, and added it to the article as such. While it might seem semantic to say targeting does not equal killing, many mines are not meant to kill, but to injure. This would have further increased the drain on the already terrible supply situation in Malta, especially medical supplies. As already stated, mines are area denial weapons, intending in this case to prevent them from harvesting the crop.


I am planning on rewriting a large part of this article, making it more in line with other weapon articles, with an infobox and more information from the following:

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

I also think it would be best to change the title of the article to SD 2 (German bomb), as I know of no other article using a nickname as its title.

--74.59.112.163 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Butterfly Bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butterfly Bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butterfly_Bomb&oldid=1206494736"